Abortion

The Texas Abortion Ban Violates Conservative Principles

S.B. 8 relies on litigation tricks that conservatives have long condemned as a threat to the rule of law.

|

The Texas "heartbeat" bill that the Supreme Court declined to block last week is almost as restrictive as the Texas law that the Court overturned half a century ago in Roe v. Wade. The fact that it nevertheless took effect is a remarkable victory for the anti-abortion cause, made possible by an innovative enforcement mechanism that relies on private litigation.

That victory, however, required embracing tactics that conservatives have long condemned. S.B. 8 invites lawsuits by financially incentivized plaintiffs who need not claim any personal injury, rigs the rules in their favor, establishes vague liability theories that threaten freedom of speech, and offers a model for attacking other rights that the Supreme Court has said are protected by the Constitution.

The Texas law at issue in Roe prohibited abortion except when it was necessary to save the mother's life. S.B. 8 bans abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which happens around six weeks into a pregnancy, long before "viability" and before many women even realize they are pregnant.

The organizations that challenged the law estimated that it would affect "at least 85% of Texas abortion patients." The only exception is for a "medical emergency," meaning the ban applies to cases involving rape, incest, or predictably lethal fetal defects.

S.B. 8 allows "any person" to sue someone who performs a prohibited abortion, "aids or abets" it, or "intends" to do so. While it exempts women who seek abortions from liability, potential defendants include a wide range of ancillary actors accused of facilitating the procedure.

"Aiding or abetting" abortion explicitly includes helping to pay for it and could encompass other sorts of assistance, such as driving a woman to a clinic or watching her kids while she is there. And although S.B. 8 says aiding or abetting does not include "speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment," its authorization of lawsuits based on what a defendant "intends" to do, even when he does not actually do it, makes that limitation illusory in practice.

Anyone who provides information on how to obtain a post-heartbeat abortion, for example, can be sued based on the allegation that he intended to facilitate the procedure. His First Amendment defense would come into play only after he is forced to invest time and money in responding to that claim.

S.B. 8 makes that threat especially potent because it bars prevailing defendants from recovering their legal costs. Prevailing plaintiffs, meanwhile, are promised compensation for their expenses, along with "statutory damages" of at least $10,000 per abortion.

The law also limits the defenses available to the targets of the lawsuits it authorizes. A defendant cannot escape liability, for example, by citing a court decision deeming S.B. 8 unconstitutional if that ruling was subsequently overturned, even if that happened after the conduct cited by the plaintiff.

Cato Institute senior fellow and Reason Contributing Editor Walter Olson, author of The Litigation Explosion and The Rule of Lawyers, notes that "legal conservatives used to be the sharpest critics" of methods for "turbocharging litigation" such as "the private attorney general idea," one-way fee shifting, and "overbroad defendant designation," while "legal progressives scoffed at these complaints." The "lasting lesson," Olson says, is that "there is no weapon introduced into legal process that will be used only by one team."

Just as conservatives have adopted litigation tactics they once viewed as a threat to the rule of law, progressives can easily adapt the S.B. 8 strategy for purposes that conservatives will not like. Legislators could ban gun possession or "hate speech," either of which would be clearly unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's precedents, while trying to evade legal challenges by limiting enforcement to private lawsuits.

Pro-choice legislators could attack the pro-life movement by authorizing lawsuits against anyone who "intends" to facilitate the blocking of abortion clinic entrances, which arguably would include anyone who expresses the view that abortion is tantamount to murder. Conservatives may regret sacrificing their avowed principles for short-term political gain.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Here's Why Twitter Briefly Suspended J.D. Vance's Campaign Account

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. SCOTUS basically let the litigation in lower courts proceed. Once someone attempts to collect a $10,000 bounty, then it will wind through the courts and likely be shut down. It is just an interesting legal twist to keep the State out of enforcement.

    When California, Illinois, and New York enact similar proposals to circumvent the Second amendment, the conservatives better hope SCOTUS eventually strikes this down.

    1. Why?

      SCOTUS can decline to strike this Texas law down when the enforcement challenge makes its way to them, especially if they end up reversing Roe in the big upcoming abortion case (first).

      Then, they can strike down obviously unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms enacted solely as private causes of action in blue states – once such claims reach the court as enforcement challenges

      There’s no contradiction between those two acts. There’s no reason conservatives should hope this gets struck down (entirely).

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

        Try now……………… READ MORE

        1. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Access To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined.GFq Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match……

          Start now……………. VISIT HERE

          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. HTY 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.

            Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

        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.QWe 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.

          Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

      2. There’s no contradiction between those two acts. There’s no reason conservatives should hope this gets struck down (entirely).

        The argument pretty nakedly lays out that Reason only cares about actual ink-on-paper ‘conservative’ rights like gun ownership and free speech inasmuch as they support abortion.

        If you don’t support a woman’s right to kill a fetus, they’re going to come for your guns and free speech.

        1. I can find “arms” in the Constitution.
          “Abortion” and “Homosexual Marriage”, can’t find them.
          I must have an abridged copy.

          1. abortion and homosexual marriage not being mentioned in the constitution does not make them illegal. computers and the internet are not mentioned either shall they be outlawed

            1. No, state laws would make them illegal. The dispute is about whether the federal constitution precludes such state laws.

              It doesn’t.

            2. Them being murder makes them illegal.

          2. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments again. Those were added explicitly for people like you who don’t understand the constitution.

            1. Says the guy who seems to conceptualize The Constitution as “a list of things that shall be legal, otherwise illegal”.

              1. I’m sure I misspoke if you are referring to me, because my opinion is actually the opposite of that.

                The point is that the constitution does not list your rights, it lists the enumerated powers of the federal government and those are severely limited. The amendments are there as REMINDERS of some examples of powers the Feds do not have, and the 9th and 10th make it extra-explicit.

                This bears repeating because sometimes people say “i don’t see homosexual marriage in the constitution, therefore it’s not a right you have” when in fact the right reading is “I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where the Feds have any powers over marriage in general much less gay marriage”

                1. “I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where the Feds have any powers over marriage in general much less gay marriage”

                  So then, Obergefell, being decided by a branch of the federal government, was unconstitutional/wrongly decided?

                  1. No.

                    I think you misunderstand.

                    Fed supreme court makes a ruling recognize your rights, which are not listed in the constition, cannot be violated by federal laws (and in most cases state laws since the 14th explicitly enjoined them). The constitution doesn’t need to list “marriage” in order for you to be married, gay married, group married, or what have you.

                    vs.

                    Federal government can do whatever they want to you wrt marriage because “marriage” is not a right listed in the constitution. This it he opposite of a decision like Obergfell.

                    1. So, prior to Obergefell “Federal government can do whatever they want to you wrt marriage” appeared in your copy of The Constitution?

                    2. I thought group marriage (or polygamy) was expressly forbid.

                    3. Except for that whole “enumerated powers” thing…

                  2. Obergefell, like Roe, WAS unconstitutional/wrongly decided.
                    The ninth Amendment reserves the power to enumerate rights for the people, something the unelected SCOTUS is clearly not.
                    So, declaring marriage a right was something over which they have no power.
                    The Tenth Amendment declares that anything not granted as a power over which the federal government may rule, shall be left to the states. The federal government includes the SCOTUS.
                    It is up to each state to rule on matters about which the Constitution is silent, like marriage.
                    The First Article and Section of the Constitution states that the only legislative power is in the Congress.
                    Even if the Constitution gave it the power over marriage, only that body would be able to make “the law of the land”.
                    The SCOTUS is not empowered to make any law.
                    The same applies to abortion.

      3. ‘…obviously unconstitutional restrictions…’ Sure. Like you know that to be a fact how? Tarot cards? And of course you know they will not be held to be unconstitutional. The article is right. Texas was very clever how they did this but they are not the only clever people who can write clever laws against the 2nd Amendment, speech and a host of other things that won’t do the Republic any good.

        1. No matter how “clever” a law, if it is against the 2nd Amendment, it is still an infringement on a declared right in the Constitution.
          There is no declared right to marriage or abortion.
          Things would be much simpler if the SCOTUS stuck to the written document, instead of penumbras and emanations.

      4. Striking down Roe V Wade would be a positive step forward for this country. It was a bad unconstitutional decision. And there is no mention of abortion k. The constitution, whereas the right to bear arms is actually in the bill of rights.

    2. Leave it up. This is America’s chance to completely rid the world of the pinhead prohibitionists and ku-klux nationalsocialists that have controlled the Republican Party since 1928. Picture the shrieks after CNN declines to invite God’s Own Prohibitionists to next year’s Democratic-Libertarian debate!

      1. That would be a funny debate.
        Democrats screaming about “rights” that do not actually appear in the Constitution.
        Toked up Libertarians muttering “freedom”.

        1. I’m calling a false portrayal.

          Democrat A: *Screams in support of “rights” that don’t actually appear in The Constitution.*
          Democrat B: *Screams in opposition to rights that appear in The Constitution.*
          Democrat C: *Screaming about how some things in no way addressed in The Constitution were illegal or should be.*
          Libertarians: Support Democrat A because she’s a nice person and, otherwise, Democrats B and C will come for you.

      2. Fuck off Hank. You’re an anti religion bigot that rants and raves. Go back to your abortion porn videos. You’re a sick piece of shit that’s obsessed with infanticide.

    3. Seems to me that SCOTUS let that legislative approach EXIST. The article mentions isolated litigation tactics but not this sort of whole-cloth outsourcing of no-recourse legislation enforcement to vigilantes. Regardless of the particular issue, I can’t see how this approach can ever be anything but a sleazy underhanded way of eliminating accountability.

      This seems like the sort of legislation (again ignoring the particulars of the issue) that was hypothetical in a law school but not actual. Has it ever been done before?

    4. Remington is already being sued because of being a gun supplier in a shooting. How do you figure this isn’t already happening?

  2. “…its authorization of lawsuits based on what a defendant “intends” to do, even when he does not actually do it…”

    Texas: Leading the way on “thought crimes.” And here I was convinced it would be California.

    1. The law has a severability clause, if anyone actually succeeds in a solely “intends” claim, that portion will almost certainly be struck down.

    2. And on the next level, intent will be superseded by feelings. The precedent has already been established in contexts like harassment, where no intent is required.

  3. Where to find the Power-Mad sector of the right.
    Pro-Life.

    Roe v Wade was written by conservatives with a very conservative viewpoint as well as giving a lot of respect for the U.S. Constitution, State interests in the fetus, and Individual Liberty.

    But here is this whole sector running around demanding MORE, MORE, MORE POWER of the GOV-GODS…. It wasn’t enough; we need MORE POWER over others personal life’s!!!!!

    Power-Mad….. It’s a rut best to stay clear of.

    1. “Roe v Wade was written by conservatives with a very conservative viewpoint”

      Very well, then, I guess I’m a liberal.

    2. “Where to find the Power-Mad sector of the right.
      Pro-Life.”

      Compared to erasing the Constitution, reworking the entire economy, bankrupting the government, destroying the country’s future for fake science, that’s a pretty damned small power-mad sector, not even deserving of capital letters.

      1. To be fair, once you are a True Believer, then you have a mandate to control others using any means.

    3. Roe v Wade was written by conservatives with a very conservative viewpoint as well as giving a lot of respect for the U.S. Constitution…

      Harry Blackmun was a conservative? (Blink, blink) That “respected the Constitution” so much as to wholly invent a right found nowhere within its text?

      TJJ, listen very carefully. Do you smell burning toast right now? Or feel any numbness along one side of your face or body?

      1. The 7-2 Ruling passed by 5-Republican and 2-Democrats with 1/ea-Party of Descent.

        1. You think anyone and anything that comes out of a Republican administration is by definition conservative?

        2. “The 7-2 Ruling passed by 5-Republican and 2-Democrats with 1/ea-Party of Descent.”

          Actually read the opinions these guys wrote, not who appointed them. Blackmun was appointed by Nixon. He turned out to be about as far from a conservative as you can get. Thurgood Marshall? William Brennan?! Lewis Powell? William Douglas, who authored the Griswold opinion that spawned the logic that Blackmun relied upon for Roe. Conservatives? These guys?? Yeah, no.

          Go read their opinions. Don’t rely upon who appointed them. Shit, Earl Warren should have been enough proof as far as that went.

          I’ll give you Burger, in that he was conservative on occasion.

          1. John Robert’s sure as fuck isn’t a conservative.

            1. Seee!

              Though I wonder how much of a squish he’d actually be if he didn’t have his (cough) alleged adoption issues (cough). Or if he actually was a squish, not that there’s anything wrong with that…

            2. Oh no! Did he do something you disagree with? Must not be a conservative then. Only people who you call conservative can be. Wingnut.

      2. That “respected the Constitution” so much as to wholly invent a right found nowhere within its text?

        Sigh… there are NO rights in the text. Only the enumerated powers of the federal government….. which are few.

        1. 13th Amendment

          Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.

        2. The Bill of Rights was just misnamed by the Founders then? They were fucking with us? It’s not ackshually rights of the People? ‘K then.

          No, the BoR does not constitute all of the rights of the people, and the Constitution is properly thought of as an explicit limit on Federal Power (IMHO, State too; but that’s a discussion for another thread), not a list of what the people are allowed to do, but to say that rights aren’t mentioned in the text of the Constitution is silly. Then again, I am at a Libertarian discussion board. I should have expected it.

          Anyway, the right to privacy, as Blackmun himself wrote, isn’t explicitly mentioned. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152. (1973) In his own words,

          In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.

          Which is a lot different from saying the right’s there to be seen in the damned thing… And then he turns around and mostly cites cases from the prior 5-10 year period—when the Supreme Court were finding all sorts of powers not in the Constitutional text—to point out this recognition of a right of privacy, ‘in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.’

          Blackmun, building on Douglas, made all of this shit up, IOW, in order to yet again judicially yank a power away from the States and say this part of the regulation of family affairs, or marital relations, is outside the power of a State to do. Which, while I might agree pragmatically with the result in Griswold (Maryland can fuck off about what birth control a married couple buys) and here in Roe, is terrible legal reasoning.

          1. I was speaking of the constitution only not including the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights of course outlines rights but only as a reminder of a subset of a vastly larger scope of rights.

    4. Anyone able to read at all can verify that Roe v Wade was copied from the 1972 Libertarian Party platform and reworded with an extra week thrown in. Here is that 1972 platform in Portuguese: https://tinyurl.com/ye3cm4z9

      1. Portuguese? Goddamn you’re a bizarre moron. You contribute nothing to any discussion.

    5. the roe decision was made up out of thin air. there is NO right in the constitution to kill your baby. no such constitutional right exists. the fact that the texas conservatives have adopted this strategy is good. too many babies are murdered every year. we need stop this barbaric procedure.

      1. Except if it really was a baby; we wouldn’t have a debate now would we. LIE, LIE, LIE until the LIE becomes a truth.

        1. Baby, infant, toddler, child, tween, teenager, adolescent, adult, senior citizen, fetus.
          All descriptive words of various stages of human life.
          The intentional causing of death, for almost all, resulting in serious punishment.
          For some ungodly reason, the last is not to be treated as a human and can be killed on a whim?
          Well, that is consistent to how your side felt about slaves.

          1. …And only one of those is a Sub-Person not an Individual.
            …And only one of those under 21-weeks isn’t developed enough to be an individual even with all the modern day technology at it’s whim.

            1. How is it not an individual?

              1. individual: 1 adj being or characteristic of a single thing or person ” individual drops of rain” “please mark the individual pages” “they went their individual ways”

                If it was an Individual there wouldn’t be a debate now would there?

                1. I get that it’s a subhuman inconvenience to you, but how is it not an individual? You just quoted a dictionary definition that does nothing to preclude it.

                  Is it an appendage of the mother in your fanatic, unscientific view?

                  1. Well as soon as it can, “they went their individual ways”… It will be.
                    And then there won’t be a battle on Women’s body dictation.

  4. “before many women even realize they are pregnant.”

    Why would this be particularly insidious to the conservatives you article is trying to persuade? Is it a conservative principle that women should have a chance to get an abortion before a ban kicks in?

    “could encompass other sorts of assistance, such as driving a woman to a clinic or watching her kids while she is there.”

    Shouldn’t you have picked a less creepy example?

    (“Where is Mommy going?” “I’ll explain when you’re more woke.”)

    “S.B. 8 makes that threat especially potent because it bars prevailing defendants from recovering their legal costs.”

    As opposed to a criminal prosecution or civil action initiated by a state official, which is totally surrounded by safeguards such as compensating acquitted defendants for their legal expenses?

    And if it has the same defect as proceedings brought by state officials, then why bring up the subject?

    ““Legislators could ban gun possession or “hate speech,” either of which would be clearly unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s precedents, while trying to evade legal challenges by limiting enforcement to private lawsuits.”

    They could keep these proceedings in state court subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

    That’s supposed to be the general rule now that we have an 11th Amendment. I personally would like a change to that amendment so that people threatened by unconstitutional laws could get an injunction against the state. The U. S. Supreme Court partly granted my wish in its Ex Parte Young decision, allowing pre-enforcement action against state officials, BUT this was such a clear end-run around the 11th Amendment that I feel uncomfortable that they didn’t go through the amendment process.

    The 11th Amendment is BS, but it’s been in the Constitution for over two centuries. I’d love to get rid of it, but let’s not pretend it isn’t there, or that the Supreme Court can keep finding workarounds.

    “If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.”

    Washington’s Farewell Address

    https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript

    There’s a conservative principle for you!

    1. I don´t think it is a creepy example. Many women who have abortions are already mothers (and have them precisely because they want to be the best mothers to their born children), and especially in case they have to travel for the procedure, they need to arrange childcare.

      1. You just made it creepier.

        Well done.

        1. What is creepy about mothers not being able to provide well enough for an unlimited number of children?

          1. Wow, can you not understand how painting women as self-absorbed homicidal psychopaths is creepy? You do know contraception exists, is cheap and is readily available don’t you? The only excuse for the behavior you seem to find to be just fine is a complete lack of personal responsibility and a childlike inability to put together actions and consequences.

            1. Your last sentence is the guiding principle (and marketing hook) of the DNC.

            2. Nothing about abortion has anything to do with homicidal psychopaths.

              1. The brutal bitches need to get it done before 6 weeks. Period, Go buy a test in any grocery store, or better yet, use contraception. Liberal society is getting off on killing babies, it is homicidal, makes me think of Aztecs and volcanoes, or commies and the gulag.

                1. I mean… If the picture in the article is from the actual protests these girls faces are enough contraception. I don’t think any of them have to worry about getting pregnant anytime soon.

              2. As long as you don’t think about it.

      2. I’d like to see the numbers on that claim.

      3. So by that logic, if I have five kids and money is tight, it’s totes ok to kill one or two of the younger ones so they can be “the best mothers” to the remaining children.

    2. Superstitious girl-bulliers shape-shift into new sockpuppets almost as fast as libertarians can block them. I’m gonna missss those incels about like I’m gonna missss Greg Babbitt and the Texas House Klanbake.

      1. You’re the incel here. Even if your shriveled old dick still works, no one will fuck you. Me telling you to fuck off is probably the closest you will get to that.

        Now fuck off.

    3. Some women are ignorant of their pregnancy until they go into labor. By this logic, partial-birth abortion should be protected.

    4. Washington’s Farewell Address

      https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript

      There’s a conservative principle for you!

      I see no way in which Washington’s Address applies to Texas Law but not Roe v. Wade. Considering the BOR passed before Washington left office, 9th and 10th A included, I see a very cogent case to be made that Washington is speaking against Roe v. Wade and arguably in favor of SB 8.

      1. Oh, certainly, but I’m dealing with a part of the law I actually *dislike* – the 11th Amendment – acknowledging the problems which result from it, and recommending Washington’s solution – amending the 11th Amendment.

  5. “Pro-choice legislators could attack the pro-life movement by authorizing lawsuits against anyone who “intends” to facilitate the blocking of abortion clinic entrances, which arguably would include anyone who expresses the view that abortion is tantamount to murder.”

    I suppose they *could* pass such a law out of spite and retaliation against Texas, but the fact that they never proposed such a law before SB 8 shows that they simply don’t consider such laws necessary for their side.

    There’s no Supreme Court precedent allowing the blocking of clinic entrances, nor are there lower courts willing to issue pre-enforcement bans on the enforcement of such laws. So there’s no need for a private AG law, and if they make such laws it will be to poke Texas in the eye.

    (One might think that the decision to block a clinic entrance would be a private and personal decision with which the government should not interfere, but the courts haven’t agreed with this.)

  6. I’m anti abortion but I also believe it should be legal. Even if a fetus has full rights it wouldn’t have any more right to the use of the uterus than I do to one of your kidneys.

    1. This is an exceptionally dumb analogy.

      1. The government is forcing the woman to use part of her body to keep the fetus alive. If so why can’t they force you to give another person a kidney to keep them alive?

        1. Because there are a lot of kidneys out there and they have no claim on yours in particular.

          My preferred analogy is you aren’t allowed to shake someone off your arm if someone is over the edge of a cliff and hanging on to it (or falling to their death). Yeah, it’s a violation of your bodily autonomy, but a noncontroversial one. At the moment, they need that arm to live, pull them up. This analogy also fits the same exception that actual anti-abortion people have: to *actually* save the life of the mother (you can shake them off).

          As a formal matter, if the medical technology existed to remove a fetus from a woman and keep it alive and developing, that’d be fine for most coherently anti-abortion people.

          1. “As a formal matter, if the medical technology existed to remove a fetus from a woman and keep it alive and developing, that’d be fine for most coherently anti-abortion people.”

            That. We need artificial wombs/Embryadopt to actually become a thing.

            Of course, it’d just be used then as a stem cell assembly line, so be careful what you wish for, I guess.

          2. As a formal matter, if the medical technology existed to remove a fetus from a woman and keep it alive and developing, that’d be fine for most coherently anti-abortion people.

            Nope. Unless you mean the medical technology and service would be provided for free, then it’s still a maybe. I get the distinct impression that many would still want to be able to forbid deadbeat dads from walking in and out of their children’s lives while insisting that mothers of kids given up for incubation be allowed to interact with their children.

            You assume a rational basis for the false flag argument(s).

            1. …I did say “coherently”…

              Most social conservatives have other views about taking care of children. But taking the abortion policy debate in isolation, not murdering the fetus is sufficient. What you’re bringing up is akin to saying social conservatives are not fine with a complete abortion ban because there are still neglected kids drunk parents etc. In actuality they’re fine with the former and have further views concerning the latter.

              I’d be very curious to see the degree of overlap between anti-abortion views and anti-in vitro. Hardline social conservatives are certainly both, but I expect the anti-abortion population utterly dwarfs the anti-in vitro population.

              But in any event, all that’s just going beyond the issue we can actually address in (abortion) legislation.

              1. What you’re bringing up is akin to saying social conservatives are not fine with a complete abortion ban because there are still neglected kids drunk parents etc.

                Except many in the pro-choice crowd also decry lack of access to birth control, disparate pay for women, disparate nuances of jailing women, insufficient maternity leave, lack of CEOs, male-bias in office temperature controls, etc…. in, and this is key to your ”coherently” argument, alignment with their pro-choice beliefs.

                Many social conservatives will openly flip to being social/fiscal liberals when transitioning from abortion to neglected kids and drunken parents. They fundamentally don’t identify abortion as a women’s issue in both directions and, despite the assertions about abortion and single-issue voting, they don’t see it as a “Christian’s issue” and they certainly wouldn’t conflate it with things like women’s pay as Christian issues. They certainly have their own hangups, but they aren’t tied to abortion the way “women’s issues” quintessentially are.

                Agreed that abortion legislation won’t resolve the larger issues.

                1. What you’re bringing up is akin to saying social conservatives are not fine with a complete abortion ban because there are still neglected kids drunk parents etc.

                  The better analogy might be that if you allowed the teaching of creationism in school, would social conservatives be content with the removal of religious iconography from state institutions? Probably not, and that’s precisely why I don’t think artificial wombs would solve the abortion debate.

                  1. Single issue voters aren’t likely to be horse trading against their single issue. There’s probably no number of dead kids you could trade for other policy goals of social conservatives.

                    I suppose what I’m alluding to is incrementalism rather than compromise: they’re not going to block the vats? where fetuses are going to develop in lieu of being aborted. Once abortion is banned in a particular jurisdiction, maybe they’ll move on to complaining about the vats.

        2. The government will force you to keep your children alive after they are born. What is the moral difference?

          1. No they don’t. You can give them up for adoption, transfer guardianship to another family member, even surrender them directly to the state. You’re only “forced” to keep them alive if you choose to retain custody.

            Hmm, ‘choice’ where have I heard that word before in the context of abortion…

            1. You are not allowed to kill them or let them die of neglect. You are forced into into one action or another.

          2. What you’ve never heard of adoption?

            1. That would be my question to you.

              1. Yep; heard of it and also heard of abortion. Did you have point?

                1. The latter kills, the former does not.

                  1. So does not feeding that bum on the corner and not giving him your warm car and house….

                    1. You guys should definitely keep using the intestinal parasite and homeless drug addict analogies for babies. Makes you sound totally rational and not at all like deranged fucking psychopaths.

        3. Maybe because the fetus is not a stranger to the pregnant mother, and is only making demands because of direct actions the mother took to get pregnant.

          1. In that respect all mothers should be ‘involuntarily’ in ‘servitude’ to all their kids for life by the force of Gov-Gun Threats (i.e. [WE] mob threats). As-if we didn’t have enough 50-year olds yelling, “Mommy, where’s my food!”

            1. Is it widely known that you’re SQRLSY One or are you doing a bad job trying to keep that a secret?

          2. She didn’t get pregnant all by herself.

            It would be much less intrusive to require reversible vasectomies of all males, until they receive permission from the government to procreate.

            The only point of anti-choice laws is cruelty. Forcing women at gunpoint to endure pregnancy and birth is barbaric. Forcing abortion onto a black market makes it far more harmful to women.

            1. Your first point is true, but entirely a private relationship.

              But nobody has a right to care-free sex (or care-free other actions). Choices have consequences.

        4. That particular rationale should be a 13th amendment one – Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

          Not a property rights argument for individual body parts.

        5. So it’s really a form of CPR and not inexcusable homicide? Keep trying. PS If you take deliberate action to destroy another human’s kidney’s I think there might an argument supporting, ‘…eye for an eye…’, ‘….kidney for a kidney..’

    2. Bodily autonomy is a particularly bad argument for multiple reasons

      Most importantly, the choice has already been made. If you do donate your kidney, you cannot demand it back, which is more analogous to the mother’s situation. The fact is that her actions created the child, and taking her body back once given is murder. (By the by, this is one of the moral roots of the rape exception, as it wasn’t a willing action.)

      Additionally, there is ample precedent for parents being forced to care for their child. Parents who don’t want to care for their children are routinely forced to care for or provide for their offspring.

      So, it’s just not a persuasive argument.

      1. I disagree. As safe as child birth is these days, having a child is one of the most dangerous things a woman will do in her life. No government has a right to ask that of its citizens. This is a personal decision.

        1. As safe as child birth is these days, having a child is one of the most dangerous things a woman will do in her life.

          You mean it’s not going to the grocery store unvaccinated without a mask?

        2. No it’s not. It’s not even close. In the US, the lifetime risk of maternal death is around 1 in 3,000. The lifetime risk of dying in a car accident is around 1 in 100. There are many, many things that are far more dangerous to a woman than giving birth.

          1. I’m all for getting the fed’s laws off my car’s body.

        3. This is a personal decision.

          ^The Truth of it all…….. But in a Power-Mad world the [WE] mob knows what’s best for EVERYONE!/s

          1. You only have.purely personal decisions when there is not another life being harmed.

            1. My brain has a life of it’s own; should it be legislated? How about my heart? Should my heart be legislated again me? My finger, my toes. Say; what if I get someone else’s heart – is that now [WE] mobs right to legislate it against me?

              Seems the 5th Amendment fits here pretty well….
              No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…

              1. I’m against the state being involved too, but your arguments are just as stupid as Hihn’s.

              2. Your brain is a separate individual from you?

                That explains much.

                1. A fetus is a separate individual from you?

                  That explains much.

                  1. A fetus is a separate individual from you?

                    Uh… yes? It’s a distinct organism with its own organ systems and completely unique DNA. Did you take middle school biology? Holy fuck.

                    1. Then what’s the hold-up in removing it…. Holy F!!!

                    2. What’s the hold-up in removing a person from life support during surgery? The hold up is that, because they are individuals, the act of terminating their life is a very serious issue.

                    3. Life Support during Surgery isn’t provided by another persons body.
                      Removing life support is a FAMILY not the Government of [WE] mobs issue.

      2. Ben of Houston has made the point “The choice has already been made”. “Most Importantly” are the words. This is the crux.
        There are many instances where making a choice has significant consequences down the road. For example, taking out a loan, or an employment contract. If you only examine the back end, you could Constitutionally scream, ‘theft’ or ‘slavery’. But that obviously wouldn’t be true. An obligation was freely undertaken.

        My body my choice is an interesting slogan, because by consensually screwing without working birth control, YOU JUST MADE A CHOICE. Now, it has become an obligation, legally and morally established as much as any principle of law and order. Parents are routinely responsible for the well-being of their kids.

        The special kind of freedom liberals lust after usually involves punching others in the face. In this case, the freedom to change their mind involves killing their own baby. Whether it is swinging their tranny dong in the girl’s changing room, or forcing plumbers and janitors to pay for your overpriced college education, ordinary liberty is just not good enough for liberals. They need special liberty, which ends up not being liberty for the rest of us, especially if you’re a baby murdered by your mom and her doctor.

    3. More on point for analogy would be I invite you over for dinner but once you sit down to eat I demand you get out and immediately start shooting you since I have the right to defend myself against tresspassers. Sorry, but actions have consequences and murder is generally not a socially acceptable solution to clean up the mess you made.

      1. If you don’t like the “shooting”….
        Either —
        1. Find a way to remove yourself from the dinner table.
        2. Use force to remove the trespasser but don’t shoot them.

        If the [WE] mob want’s to save the trespasser that’s on them. Not the host of the dinner who has stated quite clearly the guest is UN-welcomed and refuses to leave. Let the State survive all the trespassers it can but don’t pretend it’s correct to just deny hosts the right to their own body.

        1. So you’d condone murder in response to trespassing? That puts you very very strongly in the minority. Thankfully most people have more moral sense than this.

          1. So you’d condone murder in response to trespassing…. Upon someone’s body?? Like Rape…… Yes, Yes I would.

            I guess the moral sense would be to let everyone trespass all over a woman’s body. /s

            1. They sell dictionaries so that you can actually ascertain the meaning of words. It really helps, that way you don’t make yourself like a total fucking retard by using the term “trespass” to refer to forcible penetration when the two things have literally nothing to do with one another.

        2. Sorry but where in the analogy is the trespassers given an option to leave (exactly like abortion)? No, the whole point is that all the decisions are outside your control up to and including being murdered based on rules that are changed to suit the murderer’s wants.

          1. Exactly when the mother exercises her body right to eject “trespassers given an option to leave”… Those arguing that the fetus has to way to leave while pushing for laws that make leaving illegal make me laugh the most.

            1. It’s almost like a fetus can’t “leave” in the same way as a dinner guest because “leaving” necessarily means “killing”, and that maybe that’s the reason the analogy of shooting your dinner guest to death was made instead of “expelling your dinner guest from your home”. Admittedly, this is very advanced argumentation requiring an IQ of about 68 to comprehend, and hence you are at a severe disadvantage.

              1. …And now you’re stumbling back into it’s not really an individual. It is dependent on involuntary servitude. Pro-Life people pop more 180-stances than a rabbit on crack.

                1. …And now you’re stumbling back into it’s not really an individual.

                  Lmfao. Fucking Christ buddy, I already fucked you up the ass on your piss poor attempts at linguistic fuckery and you’re still going to keep taking a crack at it? Literally nothing I wrote there suggests or indicates in any way, even tangentially, that a fetus is not an individual.

                  It is dependent on involuntary servitude.

                  So is an amputee or a dementia patient. Are they not individuals as well? Let’s see if you’re actually willing to cross that bridge in the pursuit of your psychopathic death cult ideology.

                  Pro-Life people pop more 180-stances than a rabbit on crack.

                  No, you just pop up more strawmen than Dorothy on the yellow brick road.

                  1. That’s a new one; Amputations are done AGAINST a persons will? Dementia Patients are in servitude for someone else?

                    You’re just upset because you’re backed into a corner. Get over it… IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS unless it’s your pregnancy. Then YOU get to decide whatever you choose as IT SHOULD BE.

                    1. Are you willfully this stupid?
                      Dementia patients and amputees are DEPENDENT on someone else for care, which you said disqualifies a fetus from being considered an individual.

                      Like I said before, I don’t want the state involved either, mostly because I see the slippery slope it creates, but FUCK, do the people that want to argue for abortion have to be so stupid and morally bankrupt?

                    2. Which brings up the curse of the USA in Government Healthcare. Is it right to *FORCE* people to provide Healthcare or do Heath-care workers >>willfully<< decide to provide it.

                      In as much as it's unethical to be pointing Gov-Guns at people threatening them with enslavement and death to provide healthcare to dependants; It's also unethical to be pointing Gov-Guns at pregnant women and their doctors to provide their bodies as life support.

    4. ^This is an exceptionally reasonable analogy.

      Especially with the wildly dismissed factors of the actual argument like the 21-week deadline.

      1. Actually; In the aspect of parent and offspring it’s a dead-on hit.

        New legislation requires parents to donate body parts against their own will anytime an offspring’s life depends on it. See just how far Pro-Life will go to uphold their opinions…

        1. Unless the parent deliberately mutilated the child’s organs the analogy doesn’t hold. You are really, really, really, really, really shitty at analogies. You should probably just leave them alone and stick to making the argument from your murderous, psychopathic principles instead.

          1. So the State can remove it and try to survive it if State so chooses.
            Not surprisingly; Even if a parent did as you say mutilate the child’s organs the eye for an eye justice system is long gone.

            1. Not surprisingly; Even if a parent did as you say mutilate the child’s organs the eye for an eye justice system is long gone.

              That’s what made the analogy so goddamned stupid in the first place. Turns out fetuses and kidneys are different in important ways that implicate both morality and the law differently. Nevertheless, you decided to latch onto it.

              1. Huh; was there a counter-argument in there besides grand-standing your opinion of morality that you’d like to STUFF down everyone’s personal life by the force of Gov-Guns?

              2. ^PAY ATTENTION; Now this is very important… This is why the USA is on a path of destruction. Legislation isn’t just a “suggestion” or an “opinion”. It is enforced by the threat of !!-GUNS-!!.. Try to defy legislation to it’s very end and see what happens… 90% of the time someone gets shot dead. ‘Killed’!!! If that wasn’t true then the government would just be a run-of-the-mill lobbying business.

                Are you really ready have people shot dead to force them to do this?
                Because that’s what law does.
                Minor defiance gets enslaved, Major defiance gets dead.

    5. Does trespassing on private property merit the death penalty?

      1. Depends on how aggressively the person is on trespassing.
        There was a time when it was absolutely acceptable for Police to shoot defiant trespassers. Thanks to modern weapons of tasers there are less brutal ways to enforce the UN-welcomed guest from the property.

        1. If you believe the owner is obligated to evict the trespasser before pulling the trigger, Blockian evictionism is as far as that argument will take you. If you believe in the common law principle of right of way, due to the alleged trespasser being there by necessity and unable to leave without facing certain death, then the argument doesn’t succeed at all.

          1. A ‘right of way’ trespassing of someone’s own body and will-power?
            Why yes; that’s exactly the Pro-Life’s argument.

            Sorry; I don’t support ‘right of way’ access to anyone’s body against their own will. Not with an excuse of a potential for an offspring existing. Which pretty much would read a ‘right of way’ for rape.

      2. If it’s my private property, it’ll certainly look that way by the time the police examine the scene.

        1. So you want cops searching your uterus?

        2. And then during your 8-20 year prison sentence you can get intimately acquainted with the rape exception.

          1. Unfortunately, your sexual fantasies about me won’t be fulfilled.

            He was coming right at me, he was armed. Castle doctrine.

            God bless America. Protecting property rights, including by accident and omission.

      3. Only if the trespasser is unarmed and the penalty is exacted on the spot by a duly deputized and immunized from prosecution agent of the state.

    6. That’s stupid. Plus I thought you were obsessed with no initiation of force. Using jagged forceps to murder a baby is most definitely initiating force.

      1. The ‘initiation of force’ of the individuals own request.
        Body motion could be used to describe that phenomenon.
        My muscles are tired of my brain initiating force upon them… lol..

  7. The US judicial system is full of bugs and inconsistencies, because everything is argued politically. How can one expect anything else of a system where learned appeals court justices, including the Supreme Court, can split 5-4 or 2-1 on cases they have had months to study, and hold people accountable who don’t have their learning or the luxury of taking a year to ponder the legislation?

    Any question of the meaning of a law which cannot be decided unanimously ought to be thrown out, voided, discarded, as not clear enough for ordinary people. Tell the legislature to try again.

    Further, questions of constitutionality should be decided within days. If the government isn’t ready to defend its legislation instantly, or at least within a few days to allow for holidays and weekends, then the legislation was passed in too much of a hurry to be constitutional.

  8. I think this is bad, for the sole reason that it will be weaponized by liberal politicians to restrict things I care about.

    That being said, progressives don’t give a f*ck about whether a law is unconstitutional or not, they just care about results. They’re just angry that the pro-life lobby thought of this before they did.

    1. Nah, the resident leftists at Reason are just yanking your chain to try to muster some libertarian pawns to protect their abortion on demand regime.

      This Texas law is novel based on the private attorney general doctrine: letting individuals bring claims the state otherwise would. But it’s not wholly novel, lots of other states have lots of other laws permitting the private attorney general cause of action. I’m just not aware of any regarding abortion.

      The bottom line is that such laws are insulated from being preemptively enjoined by the courts, because federal courts only have power to enjoin actual state officials (from enforcing an unconstitutional law), not private citizens. But the law in question, and private attorney general laws like it, can still be ruled unconstitutional once a court is presiding over a claim under it.

    2. Anti-Life is an Atlas Shrugged chapter where to negate individual rights is evil, which means, anti-life. Coercive mystical bigots who want men with guns to coerce women as chattel call themselves “pro-life.” The German Positive Christians we tried and hanged in 1945-48 call libertarians “Jews.”

      1. Rand’s a priori argument for “civilized” Europeans seizing land from indigenous American “savages” isn’t mystical bigotry? Her claim that pregnancy is “living death” for young people and unborn babies are parasites isn’t anti-life?

        1. Readers will note that nationalsocialists seek by equivocation to impugn Ayn for ‘agreeing’ with their own collectivism now and then. Her ethical defense of individual rights they struggle to evade just like the competing looter altruists. But yes, she did urge us to vote Tricky Dick and gently dirk John Hospers in the back. That was stupid–that and helping the GOP enslave youngsters to set fire to Vietnamese villages. But the NAP is what is bettering the world.

          1. Readers will note that Objectivism is still a chauvinistic bullshit personality cult.

          2. The GOP? Goddamn you’re a moron. Vietnam was a democrat war. In full swing before Nixon ever put his fingerprints on it.

            Every time you post here, you set the libertarian cause back a little.

            1. Old Hankie still thinks the GOP is responsible for Prohibition despite it being proposed by a Democratic-majority congress and ratified by a majority of Democratic-majority state legislatures.

  9. The Texas Abortion Ban Violates Conservative Principles

    It probably doesn’t violate the conservative principle of being pro-life, but since words mean whatever the fuck we want them to mean, what do I know…

    1. S.B. 8 makes that threat especially potent because it bars prevailing defendants from recovering their legal costs. Prevailing plaintiffs, meanwhile, are promised compensation for their expenses, along with “statutory damages” of at least $10,000 per abortion.

      Fuck that! They should get costs and damages. If some fucking cps calling neighbor type were to sue after a woman miscarries then they should be made penniless after putting that women through having to defend her miscarriage in court.

      1. Not supposed to be a reply to kungp

      2. Again,

        Sec. 30.022. AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN ACTIONS
        CHALLENGING ABORTION LAWS. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political subdivision, any governmental entity or public official in this state, or any person in this state from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts abortion or that limits taxpayer funding for individuals or entities that perform or promote abortions, in any state or federal court, or that represents any litigant seeking such relief in any state or federal court, is jointly and severally liable to pay the costs and attorney’s fees of the prevailing party.

        I don’t read anything in there that says a prevailing defendant can’t sue a plaintiff for fees. The closest it gets is that if someone sues in an attempt to enforce TX abortion law (whether in favor of funding them or preventing them) and loses, you can’t sue the state of TX.

        Again, IANAL, if there’s something I’m missing, I’m open to hearing it. I would still say that it would be nice if Sullum would actually quote the law rather than just reporting what he heard secondhand.

        1. I don’t read anything in there that says a prevailing defendant can’t sue a plaintiff for fees.

          Actually, I read the literal opposite. The only way you read it as ‘defendants are barred from seeking legal fees’ is if you assume defendants always lose and, even if they win, they somehow won because the law is not on their side.

          But, again, a fundamental premise of Sullum’s entire article, both in favor of abortion *and* against guns/speech, is that the written words have no meaning.

  10. “Legislators could ban gun possession or “hate speech,” either of which would be clearly unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s precedents, while trying to evade legal challenges by limiting enforcement to private lawsuits.”

    Good thing the trick involved in this Texas abortion law completely fails to evade, and only delays court challenges to obviously unconstitutional crap like that. You just have to do an enforcement challenge, instead of a pre-enforcement challenge for laws where the only cause of action is private (attorney general).

    I am of course heartened by your false and incoherent concern for conservative principles. Desperate tactics like that mean you (leftists) know you’re losing one, finally.

    1. The bizarre aspect of it is he says it like private actors aren’t currently banning “hate speech” far and wide on behalf of the State. This case will suddenly empower them to continue to do what they’ve been doing for a decade or more. They’ll suddenly be able to do it using subtle, dubious, and temporary legal chicanery rather than the overt and more permanent means by which they’ve been doing it.

  11. The anti-abortion zealots rival the anti-gun zealots in terms of being self-righteous, ends-justify-the-means, casual with facts, and willing to act in bad faith.

    The “principles” and “rule of law” arguments are also becoming less effective with conservatives in general. The Left sees them as political enemies rather than political opponents (with a very few honorable exceptions such as Glenn Greenwald), and in response more and more conservatives are taking the view of “We are at war,” “In times of war the law falls silent,” and “Principles are for chumps.”

    1. That is a perfect description of pro abortion rights fanatics. When pushed hard enough, they will even deny that human rights exist as an inherent prooperty of human beings. There is no self-awareness there.

    2. But anti-gun zealots are attacking a right clearly written into the constitution.

      1. That was supposed to be a reply to Deep Lurker, above.

      2. You aren’t familiar with all the amendments, apparently.

        At the time of ratification, critics said that enumerating rights would lead to a belief that enumerated rights were the only rights. The critics were right.

        1. The critics were right.

          Their fault for not writing the right to a 60″ 8K TV into The Constitution.

        2. This was of course built from the idea that the constitution created a government of enumerated powers (IE enumerated powers were the only powers) They argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary because they didn’t give the government power to infringe on those rights in the first place

          Their critics said the government would find a way, despite not having the enumerated power to do so. They were also right.

    3. “Don’t run away, we’re your friends!” Mars Attacks translator-boxes.

  12. This is Really Good oputunity for everyone who wana make a big amount at home own laptop And make your family happy so can u doClick here.

  13. And Roe and Casey are badly reasoned unconstitutional usurpations of state authority by the Court. If the Texas law is dangerous, it is because it is an antibody to particularly noxious contamination in the nation’s legal structure.

    1. Slavery was ended specifically because of usurpation of state authority in the Individual Rights arena of U.S. Citizens.

      1. It required a Constitutional Amendment to end slavery. Roe and Casey are pure judicial diktat.

      2. American slavery ended in the industrial North because of cheaper wage labor (essentially wage slavery) from immigrants that don’t require housing or feeding. It was ended in the agricultural South because the administration couldn’t tolerate state secession on any grounds. For them the United States is (not are) a mystically indivisible nation. It was politically convenient for Northern Republicans to have an influx of new citizen-voters, and the Radical Republicans were zealous to punish white Southerners for their rebellion. It had little to nothing to do with recognizing the inherent human worth of black people, as most abolitionists from Jefferson to Lincoln still envisioned America as a white republic. Union officers frequently used and abused plantation slaves as they ripped through the South, and after the war they headed West as Indian-fighters.

        1. BS. To give just one example – MA. Like all colonies during the colonial era, slavery was formally legal even if not common.

          James Otis was the first colonial writer to base rights of colonists on natural/inalienable rights. Explicitly in 1764 – The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.

          In England in 1772, the Somersett case decided that slavery was not allowed under common law and not allowed under statutes of Parliament. Villeinage (serfdom tied to the land) was – but not chattel slavery – which is the specific reason that the slave TRADE became the focus of abolitionist effort. Underlying this all – the legal notion that blacks ARE subject to and protected by law as humans not chattel.

          The MA Constitution of 1780 abolished slavery as follows – All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Civil rights may not be equal – but natural rights are – and prohibit slavery.

          Even in some slave states – eg Missouri, slaves were viewed as both property and fully human. Dred Scott is only known today because he exercised his RIGHTS under Missouri law then to go to court and make a legal case for his freedom (freedom suits – of which there are records of about 300 in Missouri).

          1. Superb refutation. Because Massachusetts wasn’t a slave state and England abolished slavery, the northern states in 1861 were all natural law abolitionists. Since Massachusetts was the only state in the union and since English law was obviously binding on the United States 90 years later, this argument makes perfect sense and totally DESTROYS Number Two’s assertions with FACTS and LOGIC!

  14. The right to abortion is the same kind of judicial activist confection as qualified immunity, and as defensible.

    1. It is as much of a right as the right to use a condom. Or not use a condom, or to ejaculate your semen on your sheets rather than inside your wife. Are those just privileges that can be taken away by state governments, or individual rights that are no one´s business? Perhaps a constitutional lawyer (which I am not) and a libertarian have different answers to that, but in my opinion, the libertarian answer is the one that should matter more to libertarians.

      1. None of those things cause the destruction of another individual human. So it is not clear that abortion is libertarian at all.

        1. Bad faith — “individual”… Geeeeeeeez…. One could write a book correcting the misconceptions Pro-Life seems to spout.

          1. I’m interested to see how an organism with completely distinct DNA and separate organs is not an individual by your definition.

            1. So all organ transplants are ‘individuals’? Gosh; sure hope I never need one of those…. The [WE] mob will use it to prosecute me from the inside out.

              1. Transplanted organs have… their own organs? Holy fuck dude, just take the L and keep gibbering about your murderous, psychopathic morality and leave biology back in the 2nd grade where you left it.

                1. Biology is no excuse to ENSLAVE and deprive an Individuals right to their own body. This has been the leftard’s argument for years. What about the science to support National Socialism.

                  1. Biology is no excuse to ENSLAVE and deprive an Individuals right to their own body.

                    That’s a different question (and you’re still a moron who can’t defend your position). You made the incomprehensibly biologically illiterate argument that a donated organ somehow has its own sub-organs that make it a distinct human being like a fetus. It turns out that just like your equally biologically illiterate kidney analogy, fetuses aren’t like individual organs.

                    What about the science to support National Socialism.

                    Lmfao. Trying to invoke the Nazis to paper over a basic error of biological fact that you made repeatedly is deliciously ironic in that the Nazis supported precisely the policies you support and carried out a brutal campaign of forced sterilization and abortion in pursuit of their eugenicist scientific racism. By all means, please PLEASE PLEASE let’s talk about Nazis, you vile piece of shit.

                    1. What funny is you so no equivalence between “forced sterilization” and “forced reproduction”. Ignorance at it’s finest.

              2. So that would be an “I can’t” then.

                Duly noted.

                1. lol…. Kindergarten physics. Individual things are separate.
                  I just figured the question was so stupid it didn’t even need correcting.

                  1. Oh, I see you’re making the same retarded claim elsewhere. Let me simplify it for you. Let’s look at the roots of this composite (not individual!) word

                    In-divid-ual

                    not-divide-thing

                    An individual is not a thing that’s separate from other things, it’s a thing that can’t be further *sub*divided while retaining its identity.

                    Goddamn moron.

                    1. lmao…. a thing that can’t be further *sub*divided while retaining its identity….

                      Holy crap!!! If that doesn’t fit the pregnancy and abortion case under 21-weeks to a T. I’m not sure what does.

  15. There has never been a better time to be a lawyer.

  16. It violates a damn sight more liberal principles, like murder for convenience.

    1. Person definition is – human, individual

      Fetuses do not fit the definition of person because they are NOT individual; but they certainly are after removed…. So go ahead and pass a law requiring no-one “murder” a person after they’re individual.

      1. A neonate isn’t any more an “individual” than a fetus is. Whatever constitutes personhood, having moved from “inside” to “outside” by a magical trip through the birth canal isn’t it.

        1. That “magical trip” is EXACTLY what makes an individual.

      2. not even the most rabid pro-abortion person believes this.

        Everyone agrees abortion is wrong at some point and most people translate “wrong” to “should be illegal” in their minds.

        The argument over which month of the pregnancy it’s ok to start prohibiting abortion is tiresome.

        1. ^True the last part of this…

          If everyone could just accept that the Roe v Wade ruling was in the best ‘legal’ interest of all parties involved in such a complex situation.

          But too many Power-Mad people worshiping the Gov-Gods think it should be [WE] mob government territory instead of the real Gods territory.

          Mark 12:17 — Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.

          1. RvW was a decision based on politics and ignorance. The fetus is not “the woman’s body”.

            The feminist lobby in 1973 is obvious politics.

            The ignorance is ignoring what everyone knows, the fetus is a different person from the mother, proven in 1989 with DNA fingerprinting science.

            Accepting ignorance is your bailiwick.

            1. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

              DIVIDE the fetus from the woman and THEN and ONLY THEN it can be treated as a different person. So far the biggest argument I get from Pro-Life fans is themselves banging there head up against the wall of nature (Gods Territory) compulsively…. Trying desperately to deny it.

              I didn’t put the fetus there; God did…. Go blame him.
              But don’t feed me this B.S. about Gov being Gods that can make it all better.

              1. You don’t think the mothers actions put the fetus there. Still going with god, or the stork?

                The fetus is a dependant for 9 months resulting from the mother’s choice of behaviour.

                Like if you adopted a baby and let it die, you would be charged with murder.

                Separating the baby, killing the baby is murder.

                1. Intentional actions? No…. Accidentally? Yes…. If the stork just dropped it at the door; there wouldn’t be a debate. Because it would be ‘Individual’. No, God put the reproduction process into women (a *Full* Individual Person). Who has every inalienable means to kill her pregnancy by suicide. That’s JUST nature.

                  …And slaves ‘accidentally’ landed in slave states.
                  That’s no excuse to support slavery.

                  “Oh look, I’m a Pro-Life fan; my sperm is a baby and if my sperm isn’t allowed to create a baby it is ‘murdering babies’…..”, Don’t you imbeciles ever get tired of quoting the same idiotic cliche?

                  Repeating a lie until it becomes the truth?

                  1. “Oh look, I’m a Pro-Life fan; my sperm is a baby and if my sperm isn’t allowed to create a baby it is ‘murdering babies’…..”, Don’t you imbeciles ever get tired of quoting the same idiotic cliche?

                    Literally no one has ever made this argument, it’s a retarded strawman concocted by murderous psychopathic death cultists like yourself to rationalize their blood lust. And considering all you’ve done this entire thread is regurgitate silly cliches that would make even the most extreme anti-natalists embarrassed for you, you should probably take a step back here.

                    Repeating a lie until it becomes the truth?

                    This from the moron who thinks transplanted organs have their own organs and fetuses are not genetically distinct from their parents.

                    1. “This from the moron who thinks”
                      Oh great; Now you’re thinking for me too??? The Authoritarian in you is starting to show.

                    2. Oh great; Now you’re thinking for me too???

                      If only I could, you might be able to make a cogent point or actually comprehend the meaning of common English language words. No, what I’m doing is directly quoting you. If you don’t like being made to look foolish by quotation, stop saying idiotic shit for once.

                    3. You are a compulsive liar — WHERE did I ever say, “who thinks transplanted organs have their own organs and fetuses are not genetically distinct from their parents”…..

                      You’re just making sh*t up.. Then again Pro-Life fanatics seem to do that ALOT…. If you can’t argue without making sh*t up – maybe you’re just WRONG.

        2. Rand believed all abortion was morally justified until birth, and her influence is still felt in libertarian circles. Rothbard believed it should always be permitted by law (as should infanticide by parental neglect), but at least he wasn’t prepared to call such actions moral, and even the most die-hard Rothbardians can’t bring themselves to follow his logic on that point. Yes, there absolutely are pro-choice people today who believe a baby can’t be considered alive, a human being, or a rights-bearing person until it has fully emerged from the womb.

          1. “there absolutely are pro-choice people today who believe a baby can’t be considered alive, … until it has fully emerged from the womb.”

            The science is clear about what constitutes life and emerging from the womb has nothing to do with it.

            There’s a name for people who deny science and figure they know better. It starts with an “f”… fuckwits or flat earthers.

            1. So save the one’s by State legislation that can be saved by the >State< not the utter stomping on Individuals Rights to their own body.

              Your argument doesn't instill anything but State Law it has no application to the Roe v Wade ruling because the State cannot save it on it's own.

              1. My argument demonstrates that a fetus is a living human being. A different individual from yet dependent on the mother who put it there through her own actions.

                The constitution guarantees the inalienable right to life which the fetus has.

                To deny that is to deny the constitution.

                1. It does not guarantee ‘involuntary servitude’ (i.e. dependency) as a means to the right to life.

                  This is what kills me about Republicans taking on the Pro-Life stance. When it’s the swaths of Government Dependencies enforced by armed theft – it’s wrong; but when it come’s to the most sacred of Liberties; like one’s own body all the sudden it’s right.

                  1. It was the woman’s choice of behaviour that resulted in pregnancy.

                    Consequences for your actions doesn’t constitute involuntary servitude.

                    1. Gov-Gun-Forced consequences for sex? Well; In the name of any speckle of equal justice I guess it only be legislated for everyone as such…

                      New Bill — Anyone having sex will by punished by law and required to donate any non-life essential body parts to ‘charity’ for the next 9-months…..

                      Yes; At the core of the Pro-Life movement *this* is how psycho controlling their lobbying *is*. It’s not about reasonable anymore; it’s about Power-Mad — SO POWER-MAD they run a foul of the basic slavery laws.

                    2. The natural, not forced, consequence of sex is pregnancy with the fetus having the inalienable right to life, by law.

                      When a woman chooses to have sex, she does so knowing this.

                      Murder advocates recognize this knowing choice by the woman but deny the fetus its inalienable right to life, like all murderers must.

                      That’s what you’re doing. Own it already.

                    3. The natural, not forced, consequence of driving a car on roads with other people having the inalienable right to life, by law.

                      When anyone chooses to drive, they know this.

                      Accidents happen; Murder advocates recognize this knowing the choice by the driver but deny the others their inalienable right to life, like all murderers must.

                      Therefore; We will pass a law that anyone driving must give up their non-essential body parts for the victim of said car accident.

                      THAT IS AN EXACTLY COMPARABLE STORY OF YOUR STANCE.

                    4. …And the comparison story doesn’t even need to bring up that the ‘victim’ is but only 30% developed versus being a 100% developed ‘victim’ of a car accident; to sound complete absurd, power-mad and authoritarian government.

                    5. … Heck; The USA even recognizes body rights after death – being a voluntary ‘Organ Donor’ or NOT… Yet; you want that right taken away from living people. That’s not something I’m going to support because I recognize an Individual’s Right to their ‘own’ body.

                    6. The murder of abortion is no accident. Describing someone getting in a car and then deciding to kill an innocent pedestrian is a closer analogy to abortion.

                      People must demonstrate responsibility before they are allowed to drive because we respect the inalienable right to life of others on the road.

                      When a woman voluntarily chooses to have sex, she knows that she could become pregnant putting a new human life in her body.

                      We all have the inalienable right to life. We don’t have a right to irresponsibly and intentionally murder someone.

                    7. If our bodies were designed to give up organs without harm as naturally as giving birth we probably would have a law requiring irresponsible drivers to donate organs to save the lives of their accident victims.

                    8. If a woman gets in a car and decides to kill an innocent pedestrian, she will be locked away in prison for a lot longer than nine months.

                    9. You’re still pushing to “make sex illegal” stance whether you want to see it or not.

                      1. Good luck proving a Woman went out and got pregnant on purpose just to have an abortion …. that would be getting in a car and deciding kill a pedestrian.

                      2. People must demonstrate responsibility before they are allowed to drive = People must be stopped from having Hobby Sex.

                      3. Would have a law requiring irresponsible drivers to donate organs to save the lives of their accident victims.

                      Sums up the fact that you feel the State (i.e. Gov-Guns) should have the authority to dictate people clear down to donating body organs….. That is were we disagree.

                      I have some sympathy for victims of car accidents but NOT THAT much sympathy to point Gov-Guns at people to *force* organ donation. And when the subject is withing the property boundaries of another person the sympathy is 1/2 that. And when the subject is barely 30% developed the sympathy is ZERO. And when the fact that not a single medical procedure can ‘survive’ (really incubate/develop) that subject the sympathy is less than ZERO.

                      The juice of the potential for offspring isn’t worth the squeeze of people loosing their own body autonomy by the force of Gov-Guns.

                    10. Even an unwanted fetus is not a murder victim until the woman chooses to have an abortion and kill it.

                      She acted irresponsibly and became pregnant. Nobody is a victim yet, the fetus just has a fuck up for a biological mother. It will probably be better off adopted.

                      But the woman wants to kill the fetus instead.

                      Pregnancy and birth is not logically analogous to organ donorship. Pregnancy is a normal voluntary condition for human females while having organs taken never will be.

                      If that’s your argument, you lose. You just refuse to recognize it.

                    11. If that’s your argument, you lose. You just refuse to recognize it

                      Oh so being ‘right’ is more important than Individual Rights?

                      The ‘fetus’ is a part of a Woman’s body until birth. A fact the Pro-Life plays the ignorance game of like nobodies business. The fact is it is WRONG/a delusion to pretend otherwise. But the good news is; you Pro-Life people can keep your personal delusions; You decided you wanted to treat a Sub-Person as a person and a 30% development as complete — that’s fine… YOUR PREGNANCY YOUR BUSINESS… You don’t have any right what-so-ever or any reason to STUFF YOUR BIG FAT AUTHORITARIAN NOSES into anyone else’s business.

                    12. Did you seriously just say,
                      “Pregnancy is a normal voluntary condition for human females…”

                      … while compulsively insisting Gov-Guns remove that ‘voluntary condition’ and that’s why I’m wrong???

                      Apparently ‘voluntary’ is a word you know nothing about.

                    13. Becoming pregnant requires the voluntary condition of sexual behaviour.

                      Once pregnant biology takes over. The only way the new person is leaving the woman is either naturally alive by birth or murdered in pieces by abortion.

                      DNA fingerprinting science proves that the fetus is not the woman’s body. It is therefore not part of the woman’s body. It is in fact another’s body growing inside the woman whose voluntary actions put it there.

                    14. Or if the baby dies of natural causes.

                    15. Your Stance —
                      – Organ Transplants DNA proves a person doesn’t have rights to their own body..
                      – Driving cars requires the voluntary condition of driving.
                      – The only way the pedestrian dies is by the car-driver choosing to hit the pedestrian or allowed to live.

                      They made the conscious decision to drive today; so they CHOSE to murder the pedestrian….. Is your logical foundation to violating the most sacred of Individual Rights.

                      Ya; your case really is that psycho…

  17. Sullum, nothing personal but, get aborted you useless clump of cells. Get back to me when Texas requires an Abortion Owner ID card. Get back to me when you are legally forbidden from getting an abortion within 1,000 ft. of a church or elementary school. Get back to me when multiple states have standing limits on the number of abortions a woman can have. Get back to me when nobody in Texas is allowed to perform an abortion with a vertical foregrip. Get back to me when you have to go through a background check and pay for a $200 tax stamp to get a slightly quieter abortion.

    Until then, quit crying that the ‘Sue the advocates and sue up the supply chain.’ tactics that the left has been using for decades is being applied to them. Your threats against guns and free speech are hollow. If they aren’t it’s because of your advocacy for federal laws like section 230; laws that finanically incentivize defendents, establish vague liability, and rig lawsuits in favor of opponents of free speech directly. Fuck you and your mom with a handheld blender.

    1. What’s hilariously unselfish aware of him with this argument is he’s perfectly fine using it against the entire supply chain for capital punishment. They cannot get the death penalty legally removed so they use private organizations to make it impossible to carry out so all arguments about what progressives will do in the future with this tactic are moot because they were already using the tactic prior to the Texas law.

      1. That’s different! Mass murderers who rape, torture and cannibalize their victims deserve all of the dignity humanity has to offer, including good, nutritious food; comfortable, climate-controlled housing; protection from violence; access to pornography, television, and drugs. It’s not like they’re intestinal parasites or bums whose life inconveniences Laquisha.

  18. Gaslighting. (o )(o )

  19. Libertarians care about freedom and personal responsibility, not “conservative principles.”

    1. Personal responsibility like exercising choices about your body when those choices don’t affect anyone else and dealing with the consequences if you fail to make those choices in everybody’s, including your own, best interests?

      1. Yes, like abortion. That does not affect anyone but the woman.

        1. That does not affect anyone but the woman.

          And you probably think Christians are coo-coo for believing in just one immaculate conception don’t you?

          1. Look, everyone knows it’s just an inert clump of cells until either the magical birth canal trip or the woman intends for a birth, then a miracle happens and suddenly it’s afforded the right to live. Well, there is also the possibility of slapping a second murder charge on a man, but that bit of hypocracy is better left inexamined.

      2. and dealing with the consequences

        That’s the part libertarians have a problem with, because they are nothing but petulant teenagers in a state of perpetual adolescence. There are only rights, no responsibilities. It’s why they support government-funded shoot-up sites for junkies, government-funded housing for homeless crackheads, government-funded healthcare for drug addicts and alcoholics whose choices put them into advanced states of organ failure, government-funded abortion for (mostly black) women who are too stupid or too lazy to get (free, government-funded) contraception, government-funded food and lodging for illegal immigrants working for below-subsistence wages, etc.

        1. Having to decide whether to have an abortion, raise a child or choose adoption is dealing with the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy. Having to pay for the abortion is dealing with the consequences. Having to live with possible regrets and guilt about the abortion (though regrets and guilt are not as common as the conservatives believe) is dealing with the consequences.

        2. “Libertarians” support all those things, but they don’t actually want to pay for them.
          That’s why I call them cheapskate progressives.

          1. There’s nothing wrong with thinking those things should be allowed AND paid for by the people that actually want them.

    2. Those are conservative values in the United States.

      1. And not very good one’s at that with some polls showing 52% of conservatives support the Roe v Wade ruling.

        What it really is, is Power-Mad values in the USA. MORE Gov-Gun-Power MORE, MORE, MORE!!!

  20. That victory, however, required embracing tactics that conservatives have long condemned…and offers a model for attacking other rights that the Supreme Court has said are protected by the Constitution.

    All of us, except rabid fans of Kermit Gosnell, M.D., agree abortion is wrong. We are arguing over at what point it becomes wrong. I am willing to listen reasonably when the case is made six weeks and “cardiac activity” are too early. But trying to argue it is wrong because Roe is settled law is not going to change my mind any more than the people who continued to advocate for abolition after Dred Scott.

    1. “Us,” paleface? Both the Nazi girl-bullying and the Communist confiscating halves of The Kleptocracy are bleeding registered voters, almost all of whom vote LP in their counties. Even the pinhead commie-anarchist veep the looters put on our ticket as a joker failed to completely wipe out the LP that planked rights for knocked-up women and won that issue. We are poised to replace God’s Own Prohibitionists and drive the girl-bulliers back into their T-talitarian Party. Bye bye.

      1. That’s why there’s so many elected Libertarian Party politicians in public office. Oh wait, you couldn’t get elected county dog catcher after 40 failed attempts.

  21. The author is confusing today’s conservatives with those of the past who had principles. Today’s conservatives are “might makes right” and “the end justifies the means” types of people, no different than the progressives they hate.

    1. And just look at all the comments by people who only see this as abortion, while ignoring the way in which the legislators are banning it. Missing the point. So shortsighted.

      1. It’s almost like they’ve realized that effete Ivy League “conservatism” that consists of nothing more than politely asking the other guy to stop kicking you in the nuts is a bunch of do-nothing horse shit and finally wised up and adopted the tactics of your side. It’s going to be REALLY fun when they finally realize they have nothing left to lose and adopt your BLM/Antifa tactics. I’ll probably jizz in my pants wanting you gurgle to death on your own bile from the 5.56 round that blew through your neck.

    2. The PLCAA passed in 2005 specifically because of this sort of legal chicanery. The CDA passed in 1996 to head off this sort of legal chicanery. The idea that Texas is doing something novel that would be disasterous if applied to guns and free speech is just craven stupidity. It’s once again ‘wet roads cause rain’ gaslighting.

      If there were no PLCAA or CDA/S230, especially if it were because they were unnecessary, Republicans might actually give a shit about principles and rule of law.

      I don’t see being born yesterday as inherently superior to shortsightedness.

  22. The TX legislature is giving Congressional Democrats a golden opportunity to finally enact a federal law (that would trump more restrictive state laws) legalizing abortion in cases of incest, rape and the woman’s health, and allowing abortions before 18-22 weeks of gestation.

    Pelosi said she’ll introduce and run a bill to codify Roe v Wade into federal law, and there are likely the votes in the House to enact it (before next year’s election).

    To get the 60 votes needed in the Senate, the gestation period limit would likely need to be reduced from 24 weeks to 18-22.
    But in doing so, the GOP would be torn apart (as anti abortion fanatics will criticize the reasonable and pragmatic GOP Senators (including most GOP women Senators) who support the measure.

    This could also make it far more difficult for the GOP to retake control of the US Senate (and reduce GOP gains in the House) next year, and could force Trump to rethink his current opposition to abortion (as he strongly supported women’s right to an abortion decades ago).

    1. Pelosi’s legislation is now being discussed by US Senators, although lefty Dems are still lobbying to end the filibuster to enact the bill without negotiating with moderate GOP Senators to attain the 60 votes needed for passage.

      https://www.reuters.com/world/us/filibuster-imperils-pelosis-abortion-bill-us-senate-klobuchar-2021-09-05/

      1. So why no discussion on Reason about Congress enacting an abortion rights law, as Pelosi said she’d push the bill a week ago?
        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/09/02/pelosi-house-vote-abortion-bill-after-supreme-court-decision/5697169001/

        1. If Congress enacts an abortion rights law before next year’s election, there could be many unforeseen surprises in next year’s elections (including in the GOP primaries) at the state and federal levels, and they’ll likely benefit Democrats by splitting the GOP.

          1. But if Congress enacts an abortion rights law, Republicans are likely to benefit in 2024 and beyond (as many moderate suburban women have voted for pro choice candidates since the 1970s because they were concerned the SCOTUS might strike down Roe v Wade.

            The reason why Dems didn’t enact this type of law during the Clinton and Obama administrations (when Dems also controlled the House and Senate) is because they wanted suburban women to continue voting for Democrats (due to Democrat stoked fears that abortion might become illegal again if GOP candidates won).

            Enacting an abortion rights law would become Pelosi’s crowning achievement as Speaker of the House (and she’d finally do something that would benefit the nation).

            1. I’m not sure I agree with this analysis. The liberal wing of the Democrats, will they settle for nationally moderate abortion? And if they don’t, or even if they debate vigorously (nationally televised because Marxist media thinks only of it’s own issues), how does America view abortion? Do they buy into the far left vision, what do the polls say? Should the left be switching gears and getting into an ideological debate right when they’re in the middle of trying to pay off their minions who are putting up with their other failures? Will this play well with Hispanics? The right has hardened their hearts, yes, the left needs to shore up their now disillusioned base, but does that really play in this environment? Inflation is coming, economics is coming, events are about to overtake Democrats. Super risky if they get too caught up in it.

            2. This fantasy would be your undoing lefty. Please continue.

              The constitutional challenge to a federal abortion rights law is the case that could force the religious conservatives on the courts to kill Wickard v. Filburn. I don’t think the votes are there in a vanilla commerce clause case to overturn it, but if it’s abortion? Glorious opportunity.

              I just checked: like nearly all federal legislation, this abomination claims commerce clause authority (and implausibly Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment).

              Do it! Better yet, replace the reconciliation spending binge we can’t undo with this crap (after the moderates and the left take their toys and go home). Overrule the parliamentarian too, so the Senate is forced to introduce a less-squishy mechanism in the future.

            3. It’s nice that after your 20th stream-of-consciousness reply to yourself you finally hit on the political reality that nobody wants abortion to go away as an issue, and consequently it will never be resolved, especially not to the satisfaction of your murderous, psychopathic, racist death cult.

        2. such a law is unconstitutional. you cannot legislate the legality of murder. it would be challenged and hopefully defeated.

          1. The federal legislation would allow states to have less restrictive laws.

            Abortion isn’t murder, as even the abortion banners refuse to incriminate, incarcerate or impose the death penalty on women who have abortions.

            1. of course it’s murder. the definition of murder is: “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”. sounds like it fits to me.

              1. Yes, but you see, you just declare certain human beings to be sub-human non-persons and hey-presto! murder is A-OK. Don’t worry, that logic would certainly never be applied to disfavored racial or political minorities, or to old and infirm people who are inconvenient to a society of sociopaths who don’t want to spend the money on them.

  23. “before many women even realize they are pregnant.”
    Easily solved, unless the Texas law also banned home pregnancy tests.

    1. Pregnancy tests cost money. Of course, the problem, for women, is easily prevented ‘for free’ thanks to the ACA.

      1. If only we knew what causes pregnancy.

        1. It’s a goddamn mystery.

      2. They’ve been available at the dollar store for about 20 years and they’re just as accurate.

      3. Planned Parenthood also provides pregnancy tests.

    2. Search “Republicans Banned ALL Birth Control.” Rubbers were as illegal as beer when Herbert Hoover was Czar.

      1. Condoms were never illegal, Hankie you historically illiterate senile old piece of shit. The “Comstock Act” (An Act for the Suppression of Trade In, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use) only made it illegal to distribute porn and contraception through the US Mail. It was also passed in 1873 and left in place by a succession of both Republican and Democratic congresses. Although at least in this case the 42nd congress was majority-Republican unlike most of the idiotic shit you spew about Prohibition which was passed through a Democratic-controlled legislature and ratified by a majority of Democratic-controlled states.

  24. “Ever notice at those anti-abortion rallies? You’d never want to fuck any of them anyway!” -George Carlin

    1. Pretty sure the pink-haired dude with a “Bodily autonomy is a basic right” poster is pro-abortion.

      1. Wish his mother was

        1. That was good! How old are you? Thirteen?

          1. Nah the thirteen year old response is to say you wish she would have swallowed.

          2. That was good! How old are you? Thirteen?

            Says the guy quoting a ‘No fat chicks’ joke from George Carlin.

            1. Dude, George Carlin is like, deep man. He’s almost as funny as Jon Stewart and almost as culturally relevant as Mean Girls. Now let’s go to a Ministry concert and try to start a pit with a bunch of edgy high school goth teens in our mid 50s

      1. Wouldn’t the “girl-bulliers” be the “anti-abortion protesters” Hankie? Jesus fucking Christ. Work on translating English to English you retarded fuck.

    2. I’d rather fuck Kayleigh McEnany than, say, Andrea Dworkin, but you do you. It all looks the same after your 2nd handle of Walmart-brand vodka before 5 PM, right? (or at least that’s what you told you the judge right before he gave your wife sole custody because you were fucking your own daughter)

  25. I think of the cases where you have local officials saying that they will not enforce Federal gun laws and wonder what if a private citizen chose to enforce the law themselves through litigation? Could they do this under this ruling?

    1. Could they do this under this ruling?

      They can, and have, done it (or tried) without this ruling.

      Good God, you retards act like civil litigation was just invented.

      1. Its not a coincidence that the people in this country who think communism could definitely create utopia because they are completely ignorant of the RECENT history of multiple failed communist states…are the same ones who are constantly surprised by “something new” they read in Wapo that most literate critical thinking adults have known about forever. They are completely ignorant of history, and mostly ignorant of current affairs, with the exception of their daily narrative feed.

    2. funny thing that the constitution clearly states that our right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”, but there is nothing about abortion or killing your child in the same constitution.

  26. Why can’t these losers show such support for getting back to work as they do for killing the unborn? I believe in self aborting for them, so maybe they should just hang it up like Robin Williams? They obviously have similar mental problems.

    1. ^Speaking of Gaslighting….
      The phrase, “killing the unborn”…

      1. You think a baby isn’t alive until it’s born?

        1. ^Speaking of Gaslighting…. #2
          The phrase, “a baby”…

          Hurry, hurry; get those dictionaries changed. Can’t have a consistent definition of language with so much pressure to get control of the Gov-Gun-Forces…..

            1. Yep, I noticed that too…. The ‘literature authoritarians’ are on top of it. And that was added when????

          1. 2. noun an unborn child; a fetus.
            The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Ed.

            The semantic revisionist plot is already under way, I’m afraid. Darn those social conservatives, always distorting the definitions of words such as “baby,” “marriage,” and “woman” for ideological purposes. I mean, c’mon. What modern pregnant birthing person would refer to their biological offspring in utero as a child or their impersonal-clump-of-cells bump as a baby bump? That would just play right into the hands of the backward, evil pro-life crowd.

            1. From what I can tell they’re being a little late with redefining ‘child’.

              Child definition, a person between birth and puberty.
              … Which is quite funny since …
              Baby definition is – an extremely young child.

        1. un·born (ŭn-bôrn′)
          adj.
          1. Not yet born: an unborn child.
          2. Not yet appeared; future: unborn inventions.

          You’re the one gaslighting with biologically nonsensical euphemisms. Just because you’d rather use language that papers over your murderous, psychopatic, bloodlusting ideology of death-worship doesn’t mean that the definitions of English words change you mendacious, lying fuck.

          1. lol….
            Like unearned income? It’s a fallacy at it’s core.
            And flat-out contradiction; “an unborn child” with child having a definition of birth to puberty…

            Quick, Quick; Fix those dictionaries – Why change the law rationally when changing dictionaries is so much easier.

    2. I mean Robin Williams had an actual neurological disease, Lewy Bodies Dementia, can’t say I blame him for how he left this world.

      Not really surprised, these people have been brainwashed. You could ask half of them how the procedure is performed and they wouldn’t have clue and those are the ones you might have a chance of swaying. Then there are the “shout my abortion” types.

  27. Meh who cares it got the desired reaction from the batshit insane left wing.

  28. Why did all those girls in the picture show up there? They do realize to be at risk for needing an abortion, one would have to actually fuck them, right?

  29. Are we all enjoying the delicious irony of these pink/blue haired losers going from the “get your govt issued, big pharma approved, new-medicine experimental injection, or else you dont deserve medical treatment” rally, walking down the street and picking up the “my body my choice, yay body autonomy” signs?

    *chefs kiss*

    1. The means don’t matter. The message doesn’t matter. Not even the policies or the people matter. It’s all about the team. My team beats your team. That’s it. That’s the end-all-be-all of politics. Donald Trump was right when he said he could shoot a man in broad daylight and a certain segment of people would support him.

      1. Democrats certainly carry that primitive mentality. It’s in the very system of democracy. The bigger ‘gang’ always wins.

    2. That would require them to have some level of self-awareness.

    3. I don’t like the bodily autonomy argument. Maybe it was poll tested and demonstrated to be effective, but I could poke holes in it all day.

      That said, people want you to take the vaccine so you can be like all of us vaccinated people and not die in a hospital next week. It’s a vaccine. You’ve probably taken many of them. The vast majority of people dying of covid are dying because they are unvaccinated. You don’t understand the risk calculation you’re making.

      1. Man, what a lucky guy. You went around unvaccinated for 18 months and got it the week before you would have LITERALLY DIED IN A HOSPITAL!!!!!!!!!! Tell me, doctor: Which in which hour will I pass on the 15th?

        The vast majority of people dying of covid are dying because they are unvaccinated.

        Except in Israel where 90% of the population is vaccinated and 80% of the hospitalizations and deaths are among the fully vaccinated, with over half having a third dose booster.

        You don’t understand the risk calculation you’re making.

        The math is pretty simple: if you’re under 70, you have a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from COVID. You have a 1 in 11,000 chance of dying from the vaccine (~16,000 deaths reported to VAERS, divided by ~175 million doses distributed). Your lifetime odds of being struck by lighting are about 1 in 15,000. Your odds of getting HIV from fucking other men in the ass is about 1 in 1,000. Your odds of getting HIV from other men fucking you in the ass is about 1 in 70. Maybe take the cock out of your own ass before you worry about the needle in someone else’s arm.

  30. As a somewhat pro-lifer, coming from a very ardent pro-life family and extended family and community, I can answer the question of what’s happening.

    Abortion is the single issue in the Religious Right. THE. SINGLE. ISSUE. Nothing else matters. Literally nothing else matters. Remember, the Religious Right overwhelmingly and without hesitation backed Trump, in the hope he he would appoint pro-life court picks.

    So of course conservative principles will give way to a crazy legal tactic if it means another salvo in the war against Roe-v-Wade. Because the Religious Right is not led by principles. When it comes to fighting abortion, the ends justify the means. Hell [sic] there are some on the Religious Right who would sacrifice Freedom of Religion if only they could get their one of their own installed as authoritarian ruler (Ahmari, et al).

    1. I think that’s largely true about the Religious Right (whatever remains of it), but progressives become even worse single-issue abortion ideologues at every Senate confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court justice.

    2. Abortion is the single issue in the Religious Right. THE. SINGLE. ISSUE. Nothing else matters. Literally nothing else matters. Remember, the Religious Right overwhelmingly and without hesitation backed Trump, in the hope he he would appoint pro-life court picks.

      With delusional beliefs like that, it’s not surprising that you are baffled by the outcome of elections.

      In fact, the religious right hated Obama, Hillary, and Biden for many reasons: their rejection of American founding principles, their support for multiculturalism, their lies about American history, their attack on personal charity, their secularism, their attack on religious liberty, their economic policies, the failure of the progressive agenda to deliver on its promised outcomes, among many other issues.

      The religious right wouldn’t have voted for Hillary if she was a strict pro-lifer for all those other reasons.

      1. I believe they would have voted for her. If you genuinely believe the nonsensical claim that abortion is murder, that what else could be more important than stopping it? Economics? Racial makeup of the country?

        1. Most conservatives aren’t single issue voters.

    3. I don’t think Ahmari is representative. There’s just something magically unhinged about converts to Catholicism on the right. There’s so few of them though – the reason they get amplitude is because the Trumpkins need warm bodies who can write complete sentences and aren’t just obviously hawking weight loss products like most of their “thought leaders.”

      I do agree with you that ending abortion is seen as the greatest good in most of those circles. That doesn’t come close to resolving tactical disputes among them about how to do that though

  31. All we need now is a Texas State Fair Klanbake petition to file a criminal complaint against Mexico’s Suprema Corte. Austin women can now seek medical treatment in Coahuila, just southwest of Sanantone, now that those canny jurists seen their chances and took ’em. Their ban on girl-bullying is a replay of the 1972 LP getting our Suprema Corte to copy our Roe plank. Texas patients and hard currency are welcome benefactors to Mexico’s once-prohibition-ravaged economy.

  32. I’m still waiting for the right to privacy to apply outside the uterus.

    In the meantime, the Texas abortion law doesn’t violate progressive principles: It’s not your body, it’s not your choice, and you can’t be more systemically marginalized than being unprotected by laws against murder.

  33. >>litigation tricks

    misspelled tool.

  34. Reason in to defend Planned Parenthood…

    1. Huh… New learning for me today. Planned Parenthood is a private corporation not directly funded by government (not on the budget). Only by Nazi grants. If UN-Constitutional ‘grants’ were ended so would Planned Parenthood’s.

  35. Reason operates straight out of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”:

    RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    Roe v. Wade, like much of the federal law we are forced to live under, was decided based on “emanations and penumbras”. Presidents like Obama and Biden blatantly ignore court decisions, law, precedent, and public opinion when they act, in order to advance their agenda. But heaven forbid that conservatives or libertarians use “litigation tricks” to advance their policies; only progressives are supposed to do that!

    I can’t tell whether “libertarians” like Sullum are actually this stupid, or whether they are secretly progressives following Alinsky’s playbook.

    1. If Saul Alinsky was such a genius that political operatives across the spectrum employ his tactics, what is your problem again? Is your argument that it’s not fair that your opponents use good tactics?

  36. Roe v Wade was a tortured, poorly reasoned decision from the court designed to preserve every other government intrusion into your medical decision making except for abortion in the third trimester.

    Get rid of Roe v Wade and make them try again to find a way to articulate your right to medical and bodily privacy. It’s there they just want to get around it in all other cases except the uterus and even then only in a specific case.

    1. If they acknowledge that the 9th and 10th amendments exist, they have to acknowledge that they don’t have anywhere near the authoritah that they claim to.

      1. Indeed.

        Nearly everything in the Federal code is unconstitutional if the 9th and 10th mean anything.

  37. OK, seriously people, (*looking around for the lawyers*) it’s been questioned a couple of times and now asserted openly by Reason that this law prevents prevailing defendants from countersuing for legal fees and damages. Can anybody cite the part of the law (under the supposition that words mean things) that even remotely supports this assertion?

    Everything I’ve read confirms my previous assumption that Sullum is, unequivocally, a lying bag of shit.

    1. Sec. 171.208. (i) “Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award costs or attorney’s fees under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or any other rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004, Government Code, to a defendant in an action brought under this section.”

      Dumbass.

      1. Maybe you don’t know what “this law”, “countersuing for legal fees and damages”, and “bars prevailing defendants from recovering their legal costs” from means?

        The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure *not SB 8* says the court can’t award legal fees to a defendant in any case. This law is not unique in that it abides it. And it’s an out loud statement of the American Rule as opposed to the British Rule (mandatory loser pays), not a barring of countersuit for fees.

        But do go on exposing the disingenuousness of the assertion.

        Dumbass.

  38. While I understand the moral issues and will not give my stand on the issue, it is a political loser for Republicans. Roe vs Wade has been the law for over 48 years. Every attempt to defeat Roe vs Wade has been overturned by the Supreme court. If Republicans want to win back the government, they would be wise to revise their stance.

    1. While I understand the moral issues and will not give my stand on the issue, Buck v. Bell has never been reversed. And before you give me the “The State doesn’t forcibly sterilize anyone.” argument, I refer you to the vague and widely-abused registry of sex offenders who are chemically castrated day in and day out.

      As many others have pointed out the ‘viability’ criteria enshrined in Roe means Republicans will eventually win the issue thanks to science.

    2. You are a gutless pussy who doesn’t deserve liberty.

      You don’t “love liberty” any more than any murdering cunt loved her aborted baby.

      1. Or you love Jews?

      2. You and Mother’s Lament sure hate abortion. You two have a lot in common.

    3. Oh, they’ll overturn it. The Federalist Society hasn’t been pumping out ideological judge-bots for no reason. They really, really want the US government to force women to give birth against their will. It doesn’t need to make any sense, I suppose. It could be anything. Fanatics have been fanatical about all sorts of zany things, and they chose that one.

      1. Forcing women to give birth = making it illegal to murder babies during pregnancy.

        I agree with the logic of this equation, do you?

        1. Babies, i.e., born people, cannot be legally murdered, even during pregnancy.

          1. Thanks for demonstrating another clear example of obfuscation by the murder advocates.

            No fuckwit, a fetus is a baby.

            Let’s clarify your bullshit with the dictionary.

            Baby : an extremely young child
            child : an unborn or recently born person

          2. Not murder?

            What else would you call intentionally killing a helpless innocent human being? The motive being nothing more than your desire for convenience.

            1. The “motive” being reclaiming sovereignity over your body and its contents? Self-defence. Exercise of bodily autonomy.

              1. You’ll have to regain your body sovereignty and autonomy without committing genocide.

                Your choice of behaviour invited and placed someone else in your body.

                Not only doesn’t pregnancy threaten your life but you put someone else in your body with a 9 month contract.

  39. شركة مكافحة حشرات بعنيزة  in homes with insects that cause harm to some types of insects that are transmitted to the sick to the healthy, the types of insects that cause harm. Insects contain their types and treatment, and they also cause damage to insects, insects that feed on wood, causing insects and furniture, and they are also a reason for eliminating insects, such as those insects. Timber to white powder, good we must get rid of harmful insects

  40. Serious question; has Reason ever engaged in any liberal concern trolling? I honestly cannot seem to recall.

    It seems to only go one way.

    1. I think there have been some articles about how some left-wing abuse or other violates left-wing principles.

      But this abortion article is in a class by itself.

      The slow class, to be clear.

      1. unexamined. The left need a principle beyond exerting power for that to happen?

        1. Democracy is our principle. Majority rules in elections. The majority should get to participate in the growth of the economy.

          But wait, there’s more. Individuals also must have individual rights. In fact, realizing democracy is all about that, and you could say individual liberty is the foundation of it all.

          It’s libertarianism when you take out all the hypocrisy and lying.

          1. Unless it’s sodomy, gay marriage, abortion, adultery, racial supremacism and separatism, secular schools, protectionism (goods OR labor), non-Christian religious claims…

            Then those things need to be protected against a majority/democracy, per the left.

            You don’t have principles. Embrace that you’re the Soviet Man, it’ll make it easier for you when America rejects you. We’re just not evolved beyond principles like you are.

    2. Yet another whiner demanding affirmative action for fascists.

      Maybe they’re just going where the liberty violations are happening. Theocratic shithole states are a natural place to look.

  41. “The Texas Abortion Ban Violates Conservative Principles” …

    If true, they are not truly conservative principles. They basically are libertarian.

  42. شركة تنظيف وصيانة مكيفات بالدمام .. maintenance of air conditioners commensurate with its type and commitment to providing the necessary spare parts and repairing all problems that exist in the fastest time and with the highest possible quality in addition to the presence of trained technicians and experience commensurate with those specific tasks that require professionalism.

  43. Anti-abortion fanatics don’t care about means, silly. Only the ends matter. All Republicans are on the same page on that right now. The ends justify the means. Every last one of their defenders on this website, having previously dismissed all manner of policy on the grounds that it requires a little tax, have now endorsed pure mechanical power-grubbing.

    That the ends are forcing rape victims to give birth to rape babies against their will is just the evil cherry on top of the evil sundae. They don’t even know why they want that. They just want a W in their column. They all get abortions for their mistresses. They just used this to get idiots to vote for them.

    Winning was the last thing they wanted, if they were smart, which they aren’t anymore. All that does is focus the backlash and make their idiot followers start to wonder what was so great about forcing women to give birth to rape babies.

    1. Once again Tony; impressive.
      “Anti-abortion fanatics don’t care about means, silly. Only the ends matter. The ends justify the means.”

      I would like to point out that anywhere from 35% to 55% of Republican voters actually agree with the Roe v Wade ruling.

  44. God gave women the gate-keepers key to reproduction…
    That made the Gov-Wanna-Be-Gods and [WE] mobs very angry and jealous.
    So now we have a whole mob trying to take that ‘key’ away.

  45. doctor of business administration programs
    The program aims to qualify managers in business organizations, banks, institutions and financial markets, and workers in companies, establishments, and state agencies in all sectors, to acquire knowledge and skills in modern scientific management so that they can rise to occupy their various levels of responsibilities in these institutions, with an emphasis on professional, practical and applied aspects.

  46. An educational material that aims to introduce the basics of Business Education in an integrated manner through several consecutive topics that begin by defining the nature and nature of business and the various surrounding circumstances affecting the work environment.

  47. Hair is not only interested in women, but men are also interested in finding a distinctive haircut that is in line with the latest fashion trends, and is also consistent with the shape of the face and hair texture. Perhaps the interest in hair and the adoption of different styles is the most prominent way to change and obtain an attractive appearance, especially since the haircut is a complementary way of appearance for men. For more, click onحلاق 30 degrees

  48. Hair is not only interested in women, but men are also interested in finding a distinctive haircut that is in line with the latest fashion trends, and is also consistent with the shape of the face and hair texture. Perhaps the interest in hair and the adoption of different styles is the most prominent way to change and obtain an attractive appearance, especially since the haircut is a complementary way of appearance for men. For more, click onحلاق النخيل 30 degrees

  49. Hair is not only interested in women, but men are also interested in finding a distinctive haircut that is in line with the latest fashion trends, and is also consistent with the shape of the face and hair texture. Perhaps the interest in hair and the adoption of different styles is the most prominent way to change and obtain an attractive appearance, especially since the haircut is a complementary way of appearance for men. For more, click حلاق منزلي بالرياض

  50. I read the Bill of Rights a few times..abortion isn’t mentioned nor is it in the Declaration of Independence..so guess it is up to the States unless a amendment is passed.

    Pretty simple, abortion is determined by the States. Roe vs. Wade must go..bad decision. Get an amendment passed and the issue is over for good.

    1. Correctly stated there is absolutely nothing in the constitution which excludes babies from the inalienable right to life.

    2. 13th Amendment

      Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.

      Once you all figure out how to reproduce without ‘involuntary servitude’ all the “babies” (lol..) can keep their ‘rights’ instead of their ‘entitlements’.

      But the good news is; I guess if the Woman is in prison for a crime you can FORCE her to be ‘involuntarily in servitude’ to it…. Yeah; for you psycho control freaks who can’t seem to mind their own business.

      1. It was the woman’s choice of behaviour that resulted in her pregnancy.

        Consequences for your actions doesn’t constitute slavery.

        1. Yes Rob; As soon as you get that law that makes sex illegal you can use…

          “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”

          … to dictate Woman into involuntary servitude.

          But I’m not sure making sex illegal doesn’t fall under that same ?invisible? right to privacy the Roe v Wade ruling made to defeat your Power-Mad argument.

          1. When a woman chooses to have sex and becomes pregnant nobody but herself is responsible for that new human life growing within her, possessing the inalienable right to life.

            That constitutional right is LAW.

            Sex is a choice that results in pregnancy. Once pregnant the fetus right to life supersedes her realization of her irresponsibility.

            1. ‘inalienable right to life’ doesn’t NOT supersede ‘involuntary servitude’.

              Otherwise we’d all be required to donate body parts and blood to save any life that needed it….

              UR Full of Shit!

              1. The woman’s choice to have sex, putting another living human being in her body was completely voluntary.

                Suggesting it wasn’t is a lie. This proves that you are full of shit.

              2. And people driving cars voluntarily puts others at risk.

                You prove nothing but your own authoritarian tendencies… Your Power-Mad desires to make other people’s choices for them in the name of a self-imposed ‘greater good’ and in one of the most personal of subjects.

                You preach the ends justify any means to a T. And you desire that the Gov-Gun-Forces be used to make those *personal* decisions for others instead of minding your own business and personal life. Big fat noses in places they don’t belong, packing the guns of law with them.

                1. Driving legally, while risky is not analogous to the deliberate choice to kill someone via abortion.

                  If that’s your argument, you lose.

                  1. Never-mind *someone* is only 30% someone.
                    Never-mind *someone* is a ‘part’ of a 100% someone.
                    Never-mind *someone* can’t be survived by all the medical tech of today.

                    Never-mind the actual driving analogy takes into perspective a 100% human individual that could be saved if only Gov-Guns could *force* people to give up their own body rights.

                    I see the mature part of the debate is over and ‘you lose’ is the new mentality this discussion is taking.

                    1. You are arguing that because a baby is growing they are only 30% or not fully human.

                      That is neither supported by science or the constitution.

                      You have been lying this entire dialogue. Every time you do, I have refuted your lies, like above.

                      Then you tell another lie. A mature person would admit they are wrong when their lies are refuted.

                      You never have. A mature debate is impossible with you.

                    2. DNA fingerprinting science proves that the fetus is not the woman’s body. It is therefore not part of the woman’s body. It is in fact another’s body growing inside the woman whose voluntary actions put it there.

  51. Really interesting post. Feel free to contact Antivirus customer support team to fix PC security software errors.

  52. شركة رش مبيدات حشرية بالقصيم
    The insect control company uses insects in all types of sprays, and the American, which ensures that you get rid of all kinds of insects and reptiles in your home in the city of Unaizah, and one of the most common times in which insects spread is the summer, because all homes are open because the owners cannot bear The amount of heat it contains

  53. شركة مكافحة حشرات بالقصيم
    The insect control company uses insects in all types of sprays, and the American, which ensures that you get rid of all kinds of insects and reptiles in your home in the city of Unaizah, and one of the most common times in which insects spread is the summer, because all homes are open because the owners cannot bear The amount of heat it contains

  54. شركة رش مبيدات ببريده
    The insect control company uses insects in all types of sprays, and the American, which ensures that you get rid of all kinds of insects and reptiles in your home in the city of Unaizah, and one of the most common times in which insects spread is the summer, because all homes are open because the owners cannot bear The amount of heat it contains

  55. شركة مكافحة حشرات بعنيزة 
    The insect control company uses insects in all types of sprays, and the American, which ensures that you get rid of all kinds of insects and reptiles in your home in the city of Unaizah, and one of the most common times in which insects spread is the summer, because all homes are open because the owners cannot bear The amount of heat it contains

  56. شركة صيانة وتركيب كهرباء بالرياض
    Integrated and high-quality maintenance of various buildings, including plumbing, electricity and other tasks that require expertise and trained labor to get rid of many problems so that buildings are protected from demolition and individuals from the collapse of homes and the dangers that surround them from every side

  57. شركة مقاولات بالرياض
    Integrated and high-quality maintenance of various buildings, including plumbing, electricity and other tasks that require expertise and trained labor to get rid of many problems so that buildings are protected from demolition and individuals from the collapse of homes and the dangers that surround them from every side

  58. شركة ترميم بالرياض
    Integrated and high-quality maintenance of various buildings, including plumbing, electricity and other tasks that require expertise and trained labor to get rid of many problems so that buildings are protected from demolition and individuals from the collapse of homes and the dangers that surround them from every side

  59. The program focuses on enhancing creativity and achievement while developing the professional skills required of participants and systematically preparing them for excellence in leadership and management positions across the industry. The program provides a comprehensive foundation to master the skills of business development, product launch, strategic management, product lifecycle management, marketing intelligence, licensing, negotiation, market access management, human resource management, artificial intelligence for drug management, and value creation based on the best KPIs and criteria international industry. Successful graduates are current and future candidates for senior leadership positions in the industry. clinical trials

  60. The program focuses on enhancing creativity and achievement while developing the professional skills required of participants and systematically preparing them for excellence in leadership and MBA-PIMmanagement positions across the industry. The program provides a comprehensive foundation to master the skills of business development, product launch, strategic management, product lifecycle management, marketing intelligence, licensing, negotiation, market access management, human resource management, artificial intelligence for drug management, and value creation based on the best KPIs and criteria international industry. Successful graduates are current and future candidates for senior leadership positions in the industry.

  61. The program was developed by the Cambridge Corporate University, Albert Schweitzer School of Management, in collaboration with the CPI Institute of Graduate Studies (CIGS) and the Institute of Healthcare Management at the University. Each module was developed by scholars, authors, and industry specialists from the university, its institutes, and research bodies, ensuring that ranges of perspectives are integrated into the course material.
    Pharmaceutical Management

  62. مدافن للبيع
    Our company is one of the first companies that has actually specialized in providing cemeteries for sale throughout the governorate, at the highest level of finishing and interior equipment, which the customer requires within the specifications of the burial site that he wishes to purchase. We guarantee that you will receive a cemetery characterized by the following:

  63. مقابر للبيع
    Our company is one of the first companies that has actually specialized in providing cemeteries for sale throughout the governorate, at the highest level of finishing and interior equipment, which the customer requires within the specifications of the burial site that he wishes to purchase. We guarantee that you will receive a cemetery characterized by the following:

  64. ديوان الخدمة المدنية البيانات الأساسية للموظف
    It is a very large body that seeks to serve the citizens and residents of the State of Kuwait. The Service Bureau provides a variety of services and makes every effort to advance the market, during which you can search in the appropriate fields for the appropriate work for you on the basis of which and on the basis of your education. And his success in communicating with the team.

  65. Water tanks are matters that require attention and follow-up to ensure their cleanliness and the presence of water and thermal insulation to prevent water or heat and light leakage and so that no interaction occurs, which makes water one of its features.
    كشف تسربات المياه ببريدة

Please to post comments