Abortion

Court 'Won't Sanction One More Day' of Texas Abortion Law

Plus: Twitter's new trigger warnings, good news for food freedom, and more...

|

A federal court has temporarily blocked enforcement of Texas' new "heartbeat law," the controversial statute that bans abortion once fetal cardiac activity can be detected and allows people to sue those whom they think have performed or abetted an abortion. Senate Bill (S.B.) 8—which took effect September 1—has already spawned several lawsuits and an appeal to the Supreme Court to intervene. But SCOTUS held that because of the way the law was written (with enforcement through private lawsuits, not state action), it couldn't do that yet. After that, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against the law.

Now, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has sided with the federal government. In an October 6 ruling, the court rejected Texas' motion to dismiss the case and granted the feds' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. That means S.B. 8 is on hold, pending further legal proceedings.

"From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution," the district court said. "That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right."

From the start, the district court's decision is critical of Texas' actions. "A person's right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established," it states. "Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, [Texas] contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that."

The court rejected many of Texas' arguments for dismissing the suit, including the argument that the federal government didn't have standing to bring it (because it couldn't sufficiently show injury). "Insofar as S.B. 8 impedes the federal government's ability to provide abortionrelated services mandated by regulations, statutes, and case law, the United States has met its burden to demonstrate a concrete, particularized, and actual injury," states the court's decision. "By imposing damages liability of $10,000 or more on any person performing, inducing, aiding, or abetting an abortion, S.B. 8 exposes the federal government, its employees, and its contractors to monetary injury."

Furthermore, the court says that "The United States argues that it has a 'profound sovereign interest' in vindicating its citizens [sicconstitutional rights and ensuring those rights 'remain redeemable in federal court.'"

"When, as here, a state appears to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a scheme designed to evade federal judicial review, the United States possesses sovereign interest in preventing such a harm," the court continued.

As to whether the feds have a cause of action, the court notes that "S.B. 8 was deliberately crafted to avoid redress through the courts. Yet it is this very unavailability of redress that makes an injunction the proper remedyindeed, the only remedy for this clear constitutional violation," it says:

No cause of action created by Congress is necessary to sustain the United States' action; rather, traditional principles of equity allow the United States to seek an injunction to protect its sovereign rights, and the fundamental rights of its citizens under the circumstances present here.

As to whether a precedent related to interstate commerce applies—Texas argued it didn't, in part because its abortion restrictions were stimulating interstate commerce—the court says:

The particular features of S.B. 8 burden interstate commerce even beyond the impacts of traditional legislation. By extending liability to persons anywhere in the country, S.B. 8's structure all but ensures that it will implicate commerce across state lineswhether through insurance companies reimbursing Texas abortions, banks processing payments, medical device suppliers outfitting providers, or persons transporting patients to their appointments.

In addition to imposing liability on those coming into Texas, the law has also already had the effect of pushing individuals seeking abortions into other states. This stream of individuals across state lines burdens clinics in nearby states and impedes pregnant
individuals in surrounding states from accessing abortions due to backlogs. These harms to interstate commerce are independently sufficient to support the United States' right to sue in this case.

Altogether, the court's findings "lead it to conclude that the United States is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. It is substantially likely that S.B. 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment, whether as an unconstitutional previability abortion ban, or as an unconstitutional undue burden on previability abortion," the court writes. "It is also substantially likely that S.B. 8 unconstitutionally interferes with principles of preemption and intergovernmental immunity."

Agents of the Texas government are now barred from enforcing the law, "including accepting or docketing, maintaining, hearing, resolving, awarding damages in, enforcing judgments in, enforcing any administrative penalties in, and administering any lawsuit brought pursuant to [it]."


FREE MINDS

Twitter has started adding trigger warnings to some discussions. Underneath some tweets appears a "Heads Up" alert that says "Conversations like this can be intense."

So far, the results are…interesting.

 

Twitter is testing several new prompts "that warn before you jump into a conversation that could get heated," notes The Verge:

In one example, there's a prompt dropped right into a conversation in progress that says "conversations like this can be intense." In another, which seems like it appears if you try to reply to one of those intense conversations, is titled "let's look out for each other" and lays out three bullet points to encourage empathetic and fact-based conversations.…One other prompt, for example, warns you before you tweet something that might be offensive.


FREE MARKETS

Good news for food freedom:


QUICK HITS

• The government may start defaulting on Social Security payments if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling.

• The DOJ is launching a new National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team.

• "The World Health Organization (WHO) announced that it is recommending the approval of the Mosquirix malaria vaccine," Ron Bailey reports.

• The U.S. collected more than $7.6 billion in tariffs in August. "That's an amount that exceeds even the highest single-month total during the Trump administration and one that dwarves monthly tariff revenue from earlier years," notes Eric Boehm.

• New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio may run for state governor. Not everyone on his side is so thrilled. "Osama bin Laden is probably more popular in Suffolk County than Bill de Blasio," Rich Schaffer, chairman of the county's Democratic committee, told The New York Times.

NEXT: The First Semiconductor Trade War

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. Abortion is not our #1 problem.
    The abortion in the Oval Office is.

    1. Fuck Joe Biden

      1. CLAP CLAP CLAPCLAP CLAP!

        1. Fuck Joe Biden.

          1. It’s never gonna work for you

            1. With turd’s tiny dick.

              1. Seriously 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

          2. Fuck yourself you’ll get more pussy

          3. This is sarcasmic-level pathetic, Mike.

            1. Y’all have an interesting fantasy sex life.

          4. Fuck you and Joe Biden!

      2. Watching brandy pretend to agree with this the last few days has been amusing, after protesting the chant for weeks. Of course they do it as a both sides attempt to pretend to be centrist.

        1. Yeah, as someone pointed out the other day, for all their hand-wringing about the culture war, they’re a hell of a lot more invested in it than they’d like to admit.

        2. Well, I find nothing wrong with people changing over time. I mean, Brandy is probably the most reasonable on the left side of the fence. If the end game is that there is no reconciliation when people changing their minds, then it basically tacit admission that the only reason we are here is to sling shit at each other.

          1. Except he didn’t actually change. He is merely trying to change his appearances. He wants the centrist claim so he can continue to attack the right and promote leftist ideas. Name one idea or policy area he has actually changed in.

        3. Is this the latest loyalty test, the willingness to chant “fuck Joe Biden”?

          What’s wrong with “I am against Biden’s agenda, including his radically pro-abortion position.”

          Too cucky?

          1. No that’s legit. It’s the getting your panties in a bunch over it that strikes me as odd. Every politician deserves derision and mockery.

            PS.
            Fuck Joe Biden.

            1. I’m impressed how incredibly thin-skinned Biden is about it.

              “Well, well, well….I got 81 million votes”

              Sure ya did, champ.

              1. 81 million votes, but how many voters?

            2. To put it in Reason commenter terms, the chant elevates feelings over specific disagreements over policy.

          2. Maybe we should just call him a Nazi. It worked for Trump.

    2. The SLOPPY PULLOUT! was the worst foreign policy decision ever!

      1. shriek hates it that his boy got humiliated by the Taliban.

        1. No, he hates it when people blame Biden when it’s obviously all the fault of the guy who had been out of office for more than half a year.

          #DefendBidenAtAllCosts

        2. Buttplug’s botcher Biden got barebacked by the Taliban for bungling the ‘bandonment. It still bothers him when he is thinking about it while sitting on the toilet and peeing.

          1. Ah! Alliteration! A’ight!

      2. Well said. Biden deserves all the credit for the LARGEST AIRLIFT IN HISTORY.

        (Although like Juan Cole explained, if you’re still not convinced Afghanistan was handled well, you should blame Drumpf for the bodies falling from planes, dead American soldiers, and killing kids who were supposed to be high-level ISIS-K planners.)

        #LibertariansForBiden

        1. Sorry for injecting facts into a Reason thread, but – – – –
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade#Start_of_the_Berlin_Airlift

      3. To avoid sloppy pullouts just wear a condom.

      4. turd lies. It’s what turd does. turd is a pathological liar, far too stupid to recognize that he is and most everyone else knows it.
        If it’s not a lie from turd, it is purely accidental.
        turd lies; it’s what turd does.

    3. “Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, [Texas] contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”

      Texas has not taken any action and didn’t deprive anyone of anything. It opened them up to lawsuits. The problem is that the Progressives who run the clinics are fucking cowards. They have zero confidence that they can convince a jury that they are not murderers.

      And the judges? They could just instruct the juries that they can effectively nullify the law by finding for the defendants. But they will never do that because it would empower the People. So they just cockblock the elected representatives.

      There will never be a libertarian moment.

      Fuck them all.

      1. If the ones who made the law really believed that abortion was murder, why didn’t they impose criminal penalties for abortion equivalent to life imprisonment or death? Somebody doesn’t believe their own bullshit.

        And in this case, this is deserved: c’mon, man! What Judge, Prosecutor, or even Public Defender would permit the words “jury nullification” to be heard in a courtroom?

        No, they’ll never be a “libertarian” moment as long as governments don’t uphold and respect the Individual Rights oto Life, Liberty, Property, and Pursuit of Happiness for viable, living, actual, sapient, human beings.

        1. And in this case, this is deserved: c’mon, man! What Judge, Prosecutor, or even Public Defender would permit the words “jury nullification” to be heard in a courtroom?

          “Amendment VII
          In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

          Fuck off, slaver.

          1. Never said jury nullification was always bad. Just that court officials would never let jurors know about it.

            Also, jury nullification only preserves freedom if the jury pool values freedom. A real Fully Informed Jury would also require an early education on freedom and frequent refresher courses as adults.

            So, fuck off, false-accuser-of-being-a-slaver!

            1. Never said jury nullification was always bad. Just that court officials would never let jurors know about it.

              I made the point that judges won’t let this happen multiple times throughout the thread including the post to which you were responding.

              Am I missing something as to why jury nullification is bad in this instance? From your language, you appear to be in favor of abortions. It only takes 7 jurors to make the law irrelevant.

              If you support a district judge overriding the elected representatives of a state when SCOTUS has already declined to interfere, you might be a slaver.

          2. There seems to be an awful lot of re-examining of facts tried by juries, by appeals of jury verdicts to higher courts.
            Almost to the extent that “This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” is ignored.

    4. Fuck Be Ujt9 Joe Bidej!

      And since abortion was mentioned:

      The court rejected many of Texas’ arguments for dismissing the suit, including the argument that the federal government didn’t have standing to bring it (because it couldn’t sufficiently show injury).

      Excuse me, the Texas Anti-Abortion Law allowed lawsuits from anyone in the U.S. or even the World against those who had, performed, enabled, or assisted an abor5ion, regardless of whether the suing party had standing!

      “Hello, Kettle? This is Pot. Did you know you’re black?”

      Good riddance to a horrible, tyrannical law. Next law…

      1. Fuck Be Unto Joe Biden! Damn bastard has me where I can’t see or type right!

      2. I think the Texas abortion law is completely retarded but perhaps it was inspired by prog groups taking legal action against things they don’t like, such as guns and fossil fuels.

        1. I agree, my hope, that the SC will take this up and nullify all third party enforcement schemes like this and the ADA. If they are violating a law, then charge them and put them before a jury not let some profiteer sue because a sink is 1/8th of an inch too high. If you believe Abortion is murder once there is a fetal heart beat then charge them with such and see how far that gets you.

        2. A pox on all paper-chasing, settlement-grifting vigilantes!

  2. Twitter has started adding trigger warnings to some discussions.

    That bird icon itself is a trigger warning.

    1. We should turn it upside down. Flip the bird.

      1. Wow! Chumby would be so proud!

  3. … launching a new National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team.
    Will it be part of Space Force?

    1. Nah, part of the new Less-is-more Post Office. The will watch for people mailing those bitcoins back and forth.

    2. More importantly, Bitcoin’s market cap is not $1 Trillion!

      1. Ooops, NOW $1 Trillion. DOH

        1. It’s bitcoin, so they may have both been true at the time 😉

  4. After a decade of litigation & legislative activism, @IJ has finally made it legal for #HomeBakers to sell their goods in ALL 50 STATES!!

    Across state lines???

    1. Let’s not get crazy here.

    2. That better be on US flag ships, or something.

      1. U.S. flag ships on land no less!

        1. Running on solar wind, and crewed by multi-racial transgender collectives.

  5. Mrs. Nolan Brown, there is a lot more going on in the world pertaining to libertarianism than Texas’ parameters for abortion.

    1. The TX fight has ramifications that go far beyond abortion.

      Imagine this tactic applied to anything else you might want. Want to buy a gas powered car? Private lawsuit for enabling it. Want to not use someone’s preferred pronouns – lawsuit. etc.

      The TX law is one where I can support their aims but it has to be shot down because the tactic is too dangerous to let the other side do it too.

      1. Imagine this tactic applied to anything else you might want

        Like suing gun manufacturers for crimes allegedly committed with the guns they manufactured?

        1. Better still, sue the car manufacturers for any crime where the crooks use a car for the getaway!

      2. This is what I love about the Texas abortion issue. Fedgov is backed into a corner. They have to fight it, because abortions, but in fighting it, they’re going to create a precedent that bars them from using the same tactic on other issues, like guns.

          1. Sorry, but by aiding and abetting gambling you will now be sued for $10,000 by a third party every time you say “Wanna bet?”

            1. And you can make book on that! 😉

              (Seriously, I got threatened with a Banhammer on the Forum for Jack Spirko’s Survival Podcast just for saying that! Fuck Be Unto Jack Spirko, Bad Quaker, Sister Wolf, and all his Moderators with Joe Biden’s hair-triggered dick! And Fuck Be Unto Joe Biden too!

        1. Oh, give Roberts credit. He will happily write a “Well, this is illegal BUT IT IS NOT A PRECEDENT AND DON’T EVEN PRETEND IT IS ONE” opinion.

        2. Someone hasn’t noticed that we’ve had different laws for different people the last five years or so.

      3. The scumbag progressives have been using this tactic for decades

      4. They HAVE done so. For a while now.

      5. You mean like how the ADA allows individuals to sue for violations?

        1. And has done so from the word go.

          Wonder why everything BUT abortion is not so sacrosanct.

          1. For most progressives, the old bumper sticker is doctrine:

            Republicans: Regulate nothing but abortion
            Democrats: Regulate everything but abortion

            1. Nice bumper sticker!

      6. The TX fight has ramifications that go far beyond abortion.

        The courts will not let this get away from them. The judges would have to acknowledge that jury nullification is a valid way for the People to be the final arbiters of justice.

        Think about it. If these cases go to court and juries just refuse the judges instructions and find for the defendants, the problem is solved. So they can never allow that to happen.

      7. “The TX law is one where I can support their aims but it has to be shot down because the tactic is too dangerous to let the other side do it too.”

        While I agree with you, the problem is that the tactic is ALREADY used by the other side. This exact mechanism is used in California to allow private individuals to sue businesses for ADA violations.

        1. With ADA the plaintiff actually has to have a disability, have patronized the business, and been denied equal access or accommodation.

          While I agree, this is absolutely rife with room (and incentive) for abuse, and often is abused by unscrupulous lawyers, it still requires someone in a wheelchair (for example) to visit the business and theoretically be discriminated against.

          The Tx law literally anyone, anywhere an sue someone for facilitating in any way. Give someone a ride to the doctor? If they have an abortion some rando in a state 1500 miles away can sue for 10K. In fact, EVERYONE can sue for that amount. It is above and beyond even the stupidest aspects of ADA.

          1. That is a good point. I withdraw my objection.

            1. If it means anything, I despise the ADA’s way of doing it too.

              Have friends and family in a 100 year old mountain town and some clown rolled through there extorting literally every business owner. Ancient buildings on steep streets do NOT do well with modern “ADA” compliant ramps and doors, so it was easy pickin’.

              Luckily, that guy overplayed his hand and got disbarred. But the scan still gets run, everywhere, and often.

      8. Almost every article of hers covers this. I’m not asking for silence on this just proportion.

        1. Proportion on abortion? Never that, not from either side.

          If it’s any solace, I never mention it until someone else does because, really, no minds have ever been changed by an abortion discussion or abortion Forum. Though I have strong thoughts on every subject, I am not a one-note symphony either.

          1. Proportion on the coverage. She’s like Court TV during the OJ trial with this subject.

            1. So it is all about the coverage. What you read in media today.

    2. That she is basically applauding a judge enjoining people who were not named in the suit nor were parties of the suit.

      You’d think libertarians would find that a bit troubling.

      1. You’d think libertarians would find that a bit troubling.

        Libertarians would, but we’re talking about a Reason Editor.

      2. Texas started this by allowing non-parties to abortions to sue parties to abortions, so it is perfectly fitting and just desserts that the judge did this.

        1. To basically punish people uninvolved with the suit? The judge needs a nice ventilation.

          1. No to ward off people making suits without standing, such as those suing under the Texas law. The judge needs congratulation.

        2. But applaud judges acting extra-judicially. I bet that will never end poorly.

    3. But Texas likes things big and they just jot a big ol’ handing back of their big ol’ ass from the big ol’ courts.

      I once knew a guy from Texas a head shorter than I was who was kinda sensitive about his size and body image. I once mentioned how Texas likes things big and he asked, with feigned quivering lips: “Well, what have I got that’s big?” I replied: “You have a big…heart!” And he cheered up then.:)

      1. This is overwrought. Until the SCotUS rules on this, every action by the courts is posturing.

  6. Getting a trigger warning on your tweet will be the new status symbol.

    1. I only buy albums with the Parental Advisor warning on it!

      /said my 14 year old self.

      1. I don’t think I’ll ever forget the look on my mother’s face when I held up to her Ozzy’s Speak of the Devil album and said “can I get this?” She swallowed her initial reaction and stammered “sssure”.

      2. Hey, look how well Al and Tipper Gore’s son turned out because of their stellar parenting.

      3. I have a signed copy of Tipper’s “How to Raise PG Kids in an X Rated Society.” She saw my smirk, and chose not to make small talk. Horrible family, the lot of them.

        1. This is awesome. That would be amongst the proudest moments in my book collection.

          If you have friends like mine any one of them will instantly get the joke if they discover that book on your bookshelves.

  7. The government may start defaulting on Social Security payments if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling.

    Why would the Republicans do this?

    1. But congresscritters paychecks won’t bounce.

      1. I think they should be held personally liable for congressional malpractice. They should have to help pay for the budget deficit.

    2. I must wonder if there is any fear mongering from progs that ENB does not buy into wholesale.

      If they default on it, it’s because the Feds CHOSE that route.

      1. Well, it’s not like they could just take the money from the TSA or education department. Or stop all the FBI investigations into parents attending school board meeting.

        1. Just stop paying all federal employees. Let them donate thier time.

      2. Notice the deceitful conflation being done here as well. The Bluecheck Squealer here is admitting that Social Security has a shortfall and is being covered with the “trust fund,” which is just government debt when the bonds are sold, and then lies that the government will default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.

        The government will not default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. It defaults if it can’t make the payments on its existing debt, which there is very little concern for after over a decade of ZIRP loans and rock-bottom bond rates. The Fed painted themselves into a corner by not raising rates years ago, so now they can’t raise them at all or it’s financial armageddon.

        Don’t fall for what these liars are claiming.

    3. Social security is a debt owed. It would normally be one of the first creditors in line for asset allocation.

      But democrats pretend their social program spending is first and debt is last. ENB agrees with that narrative.

      1. Of course social spending is debt, with highest priority. We OWE all those stupid people a better life, right?

      2. It would be first…UNLESS a Dem President had unions to grovel to and forced bankruptcy courts to utterly change that for the GM thing.

    4. Just like our county government. When they want to raise tax assessments, they start by cutting school and police funding, to hurt the largest group possible.

    5. My whole life, from age 15 I never expected Social Security would last. The faster it goes broke, the fast I can start fighting rats in a gutter with a “toothpick” and a switch for a Mar’s Bar!..Or the faster someone can come up with a voluntary system of retirement that renders good returns.

      1. “Or the faster someone can come up with a voluntary system of retirement that renders good returns.”

        Anyone gonna tell him?

        1. According to Stossel, Chile gave up compulsory Social Security, so I know it’s possible.

    6. Here they promised that it was a separate trust fund. Are they calling out their own lies?

      1. The problem is that the Social Security funds were put into a lock box but they’ve lost the key. Al Gore was supposed to be the one in charge of the key but he claims he was never given the key and has no idea where it might be.

        1. My Aunt always got a big laugh out of how Al Gore always said: “lawck bawkx.”

    7. The government may start defaulting on Social Security payments if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling

      They’ll do no such thing until the bulk of the boomers bite the dust. They’re a huge percentage of the voting population.

      Of course now they just mail ballots to everyone and harvest them as necessary. Maybe those on “fixed incomes” should be worried.

      I guess it depends on how confident the Democrats are that they’re no longer going to loose elections. Maybe the threat of cutting off SS is a serious one if they don’t get their debt ceiling raised.

      1. What it really depends on is whether they think they can get away with blaming the Republicans. If they think they can, they’ll do it. If they think the heat will fall on them, they won’t.

  8. These anti-abortion laws are terrible. I want to have sex with as many women as possible, but I don’t want to be a father. We need abortion to remain legal.

    1. This is why we have the saying wrap it up before you jack it up

    2. Abortions need to remain legal, because we’ve decided that you only get to make your own healthcare decisions if they don’t affect anyone else.

      Since the likelihood of an unaborted baby ending up on welfare is high under certain circumstances, as a taxpayer I believe we need mandatory abortions for parents under 26, single parents without a stable income of suitable amount, or parents without a college degree

      1. Same question I often ask those who are hardcore anti-abortion. You are quite willing to step in and interfere in a woman’s decisions about her pregnancy — are you also willing to step in and help provide support for that child you are forcing her to have?

        1. We know your not you vote for theft

        2. Pro lifers already do that.

          However, perhaps she should have decided to not fuck and let a guy cum in her? I mean, MEN do not get out of THEIR responsibilities in identical situations.

          1. A decision to have sex is not a decision to become a parent unless every act of sex results in parenthood which it obviously does not. The option to be a parent is made by the woman because it cannot happen without her consent. A man can be made a parent or not by the womans actions. It is a situation beyond his control. How can he be responsible for something beyond his control?

            1. Child support laws have already made him responsible, which only further supports my mandatory abortion position

              1. It just goes to show how ridiculous those laws are that someone should have to pay for a decision over which they had no control.

          2. Getting pregnant is an accidental side-effect of sex. It’s like getting a tapeworm from restaurant food. When someone gets a tapeworm, a doctor doesn’t blame the patient saying “You should have decided not to eat potentially contaminated food. Now that the tapeworm egg has hatched, it’s your own fault”.

            1. It might be an ‘accidental’ side-effect but because a woman has become pregnant it does not automatically follow that she has to remain pregnant until birth. She has a choice to no longer be pregnant.

        3. “How could she have possibly known having sex might lead to pregnancy?”

        4. This is a stupid question the left asks all the time despite not understanding how many women support groups there are post pregnancy already. You’re just ignorant Mike.

        5. Same question I often ask those who are hardcore anti-abortion. You are quite willing to step in and interfere in a woman’s decisions about her pregnancy …

          Do you have similar concerns with every other medical procedure and treatment the government has restricted your choices about?

        6. Should supporters of laws preventing parents from killing their children after birth also be required to pony up?

          1. There’s an argument you could make for that. The biggest difference being in the early pregnancy when the child is not viable as a separate life.

            1. So, ban abortions at 20 weeks?

        7. Let it be known that unless Mike is willing to care for some kid who would be killed in a drive by shooting, he doesn’t get to interfere with the shooter’s decisions.

          1. You are equating a kid able to walk and talk with a fetus. Where is the evidence that they are equal?

            1. Walk and talk, eh? So only if they’re under 1 year old?

              1. No, only old enough to be in the way of a drive by.

      2. Can we make that abortions of parents under 26?

    3. Maybe you should identify as a black hiphop artist.

      1. Or a racist host of a bafflingly popular idiotic masked show on Fox where celebs try to sing.

    4. Anti abortion laws don’t let the father decide. Only a woman’s right. She decides for the father. Liabilities and all.

      1. “A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established,”

        Have you actually ever read Roe v Wade, especially Section 106 near the end?

        106
        This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

        Roe v Wade ostensibly wasn’t about the woman’s right to obtain an abortion, it was about the physicians right to perform an abortion.

    5. Thank you for your cartoonish, dismissive summation of all possible reasons a woman might choose an abortion.

      1. OK, we need to make sure all women can have sex with as many men as possible, and not have to be mothers. Better?

        1. You know it is biologically possible to get pregnant from having sex with just one man. Look it up.

          1. Non incels don’t have to look it up White Mike. What are you trying to say?

            1. If only Mike’s dad had worn a cawndom.

              1. Lol. You’ve outdone yourself. Bravo.

    6. What’s wrong with making abortion legal, with no restrictions, but providing zero public funding to perform it?

      People who are pro-life can rest assured that at least their tax dollars aren’t paying for it. And think of the social signaling power of the PBS-style tote bag Planned Parenthood gives pro-choice supporters, for their monthly donation to help those in need.

      Does it violate the progressive idea of “if the government doesn’t provide it for free, they’re prohibiting it”?

      Perhaps this is the most libertarian solution, and thus has 0% chance of happening.

      1. Yes. About 10 years, both sides of the mainstream were more or less in agreement that Roe was the least-bad choice of policies. However, both sides started pulling harder.

        I think the start was the progressives wanting more and more government funding, banning of parental consent or notification (seriously, my daughter cannot participate in a taste test without consent, but she can get an abortion by herself, and I’m not even allowed to be notified), and even celebration of abortions. Enough quietly displeased conservatives then were pushed to the hardline ones to push back.

      2. Should public funding exist for vaccination? Perhaps we should not provide funds for it to appease anti-vaxxers.
        Each funding decision should be made on its own merits and not on who might be offended by it.

  9. Some countries are looking at the science instead of The Science and beginning to not issue vaccines for younger adults. Cite a higher risk from vaccines than from serious covid complications.

    https://t.co/IJJIgtzChN?amp=1

    1. Meanwhile in the US a hospital denied an organ transplant between two consenting adults because they weren’t vaccinated. Despite telling both of them in August it was up to them. Recipient was told by her doctor not to get vaccinated due to immuno repressive shots for surgery.

      https://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2021/10/06/uchealth-denies-kidney-transplant-to-unvaccinated-woman-donor/

      1. It’s for their own good.

      2. The hospital is guilty of premeditated murder

      3. Is it rude to notice that more people have died of COVID under Biden than did under Trump?

        And that is with both a vaccine and knowing how to treat it from the word go under Biden.

        He has, literally, fucked up every single thing. Except his son’s (and, of course, his own) bank accounts.

        1. Yes it is rude, the proper term is not covid, it’s “the nih funded Wuhan lab virus”

          1. Fauci flu

        2. SPB no longer gives us the president caused death counts. Wonder why.

          1. Bloomberg used to have a big death chart on the front page everyday. It vanished in January.

            1. It’s currently Trump 352,000 and Biden 353,000. And Trump had several Dem governors intentionally killing tens of thousands of people.

              1. Did some of Biden’s totals come in large batches early in the morning?

            2. OBL can explain that.

        3. Yes it is rude, in that it should not be said in “polite” society.

        4. Not only rude, but seditious and heretical. True believers know that all evil since forever is the fault of the Great Orange Satan. And always will be.

        5. And we haven’t even gotten to the winter wave yet.

      4. Recipient was told by her doctor not to get vaccinated due to immuno repressive shots for surgery.

        How dare she get medical advice from her doctor! Doesn’t she know the only approved source for medical advice is social media?

        1. Federal officials (mis)quoted in social media.

        2. That’s the really funny part and I hope they sue the hospital into bankruptcy.

      5. At what point can we start calling the boards that make these ridiculous decisions ‘death panels’?

        1. Word.

          Hopefully this person and her family get millions out of the settlement.

          Yet another example of yesterday’s conspiracy theories are today’s current events.

      6. “Fougner says she hasn’t received the vaccine for religious reasons. Lutali hasn’t gotten the shot because she says there are too many unknowns. Until last week, neither woman thought they needed to be vaccinated for the transplant.”

        Well OK you did not know. You do at UC. One more thing since your medical intervention is going to get much more intense.

        What is going to happen is the recipient will be on long term immune repression therapy. There are no further choices after that. The donor is a choice only in the sense that you want to do everything you can to be sure you are not unwittingly transmitting anything, cancer, underlying renal disease, infection, anything before donating an organ.

        These things happen by protocol. A renal transplant is a big deal. Few places can do them and they are not without known failures and complications.

        Too many unknowns. Yet you are wanting major surgery. Transplant which is very risky.

        Religious reasons. What religion would that be? I do not know of any major religion objecting to life saving surgery.

    2. Some countries are looking at the science instead of The Science and beginning to not issue vaccines for younger adults…

      They say there’s nothing new under the sun, but one phenomenon that’s unique in our time is the raging, yet unseen, battle of science vs TheScience™. It really escalated with all the Climate Change fuckery. And like with Climate Change, it’s clear what side of the battle the fucking US government falls on.

      Imagine being a real, bona fide scientist/researcher who’s actually reaching conclusions that disagree with TheScience™. Do you go along to get along? Or do you risk loosing your grant and/or status as a “serious” researcher by publishing your results?

      It says a lot the the Swedes and Danes are at least slowing down with the jabs and getting more data, while progressive shitholes like CA are full speed ahead with vaccine mandates for the kiddos. Perhaps, for once, real science should supersede the the social signaling that TheScience™ demands, and that hacks like Gavin Newsom cheerfully provide.

  10. “From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,” the district court said. “That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.”

    This is an Obama appointee who injected pure politics in his 113 page opinion.

    Current precedent allows regulations to the point of viability. Texas has just defined this point. The Texas legislature is more proper of a place to do so than a judge is. The judge did not cite his definition of viability.

    Likewise the right to abortion is not enshrined in the constitution. It was inferred from a right to privacy inferred from another right. On fact the right to privacy is often violated through the right to free speech by the media.

    The ruling was purely political and ENB celebrates it.

    1. S.B. 8 was deliberately crafted to avoid redress through the courts. Yet it is this very unavailability of redress that makes an injunction the proper remedy—indeed, the only remedy for this clear constitutional violation,”

      Yet the same maneuvers were used to stop election lawsuits with claims of no particularity of harm before and mootness after.

      1. That’s different.

      2. I’m also baffled how an injunction can be enforced on somebody who was not part of the suit at all in the first place. This judge just did it.

    2. Also I’m curious how, if the Feds have standing here, they won’t have standing in literally every single case in every single court in America.

      1. Welcome to the Unity States of America.

      2. Once again, it was the Texas Law that brought in non-parties to abortion without standing to sue parties to abortion. Texas sowed the bitch seed and is now reaping the bumper crop come harvest time.

        1. I disapprove of this law therefore I support extrajudicial and not legal means to stop it.

          Again, not a chance that works out poorly for you.

    3. The law was political and it got overturned.

      And the Constitution doesn’t mentioned either semi-automatic or automatic weapons or automobiles or the Internet. Do citizens have no right to own or use these things either?

      1. Automobiles and guns are WAY more regulated than abortion. And one of them is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. As far as the internet, 2000 called and wants it tired-back-then point back.

      2. How cute. You think the constitution says what citizens get. Also don’t know what the term arms means.

    1. That they are professors at MONTANA STATE U should be a good enough insult for them.

      “Professor, unlike you, I will move beyond this school”

    2. Your link is broken, but check out this headline from Inside Higher Ed:

      Libertarian Students Fight Montana State Mask Mandate

      After protesting the mask mandate on campus with a megaphone, he said, he received pushback from professors via email. “Honestly, I think you are a selfish idiot who cannot even consider the potential suffering you can cause others, particularly the immunocompromised and children too young to be immunized,” wrote one professor in a message obtained by Inside Higher Ed. “This is a serious disease.”

      I’d love to find the professor and put his head through a wall.

        1. If I were that student, maybe bring to light all the social functions that happen unmasked on campus.

      1. Hey, professors are in the front line trenches in the war against people thinking for themselves!

        1. If there were someone more suited for storming the beaches of mental curiosity for the cause of group think, I can’t think of them.

          1. Ever been to the Vatican?

  11. The DOJ is launching a new National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team.

    They need to reseize the means of commerce.

    1. The lack of a cool acronym indicates this was a heat of the moment thing.

      1. Crypto Unity National Team Squad?

  12. Osama bin Laden is probably more popular in Suffolk County than Bill de Blasio,” Rich Schaffer,”

    If terrorists attacked NYc again nobody would care

    1. A terrorist did. Last year. Over 10,000 seniors were murdered.

  13. The World Health Organization (WHO) announced that it is recommending the approval of the Mosquirix malaria vaccine…

    Joni Mitchell is going to have to massage the lyrics to Big Yellow Taxi.

    1. That made no sense. There’s less need for DDT now.

      1. Because you are a humorless dumbass.

      2. *shakes head*

        You’re adorable. Totally adorable.

        1. No, the asshole isn’t. He’s the embodiment of that fat, smelly, uncle who showed up at family gatherings, whined about how the world was unfair to him except for the times he was asking people to explain their jokes.
          Fat, stupid, smelly, smug and an asshole besides; not ‘adorable’.

      3. It made perfect sense to me.
        Joni was more concerned about spots on apples than thousands dying of malaria.

        1. That doesn’t change the fact that Fist’s joke was backwards, logically.

          1. Why are you worried about DDT? Are you also scientifically ignorant about it as you are most science?

            https://spectator.org/48925_ddt-fraud-and-tragedy/

            1. I’d worry about the DdT if I had a match with Jake “The Snake” Roberts.

            2. I know it’s a lot of work and all that, but look up the lyrics to the song.

    1. It is baffling how bad Biden has been. I always thought he would be horrible, but he’s so much worse.

      1. But no mean tweets.

        1. Until yesterday.

      2. It isn’t that Biden is so bad—although that is awful for the United States—it’s that his senior advisers are this incompetent. I doubt strongly that Biden is making any substantive decisions at this point in his illness. Choosing his nap time ice cream flavor might even be beyond him. Someone else, more likely a group of someone elses, is deciding to make these Godawful decisions.

        The US can survive a senescent President. It has in the past: Wilson, Reagan’s last year(s). I don’t know if it can survive the completely sclerotic, venal, ignorant ruling class in government that we have now. Getting rid of Biden won’t make things better if people like Austin, Milley, Susan Rice, Sam Power, and Valerie Jarrett are still going to be there.

        1. This. I expected them (the people actually running things) to enact policies that I completely disagree with, to lie, and be otherwise despicable. I didn’t expect them to be so completely incompetent on mundane actions.

          The longer it goes on, and the worse it gets, the more I’m opening up to the idea it’s on purpose. Which is really scary.

          1. You’re not going to be able to reset anything for the whole globe, unless you rip down the United States first. (And especially its independent middle class.)

            I vacillate between two interpretations. That because of educational and cultural standards being eroded away over the last sixty years, they’re just that fucking stupid, insulated, and ignorant such that this is the best they can do. Or this is malevolent and intentional. That they are in the actual employ of a foreign power that needs the United States to be destroyed.

            1. The problem they have is that the independent middle class are WAY more clever than the BBB morons. They’re the ones who already have to hustle to get ahead.

    2. That’s what you guys got from this??

      Suicide bomber released.

      Suicide bomber.

      Released.

      I don’t think that is how suicide bombs work.

      1. The person in question had apparently been released from prison at Bagram as part of the bugout days before he committed the suicide bombing at Kabul. You misunderstood the sequence of events.

        1. I sure did.

          Don’t read only the headline and comment while on the pot.

          Lesson kearned.

      2. His innards were released from his outards.

      3. A few days before he did the bombing.

    3. But did the suicide bomber ever peacefully trespass at the Capitol?

  14. “From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,” the district court said.

    Its right there on page eleventy-seven!

    1. Funny how killing babies is in the US Constitution, but keeping and bearing arms is not.

      1. Funny how an invasive medical procedure, for one organ and one single organ only, which occurs in only half the population, is protected by the constitution…

        but smoking weed is not.

      2. How do you define a baby if you want to put it in the constitution?

    2. It’s covered in the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments. The language is broad enough.

      1. You can’t say “broad” anymore. Report for reeducation.

  15. The U.S. collected more than $7.6 billion in tariffs in August.

    Its only legit tax revenue.

    1. It bet they pissed it away on something stupid.

    2. Personally, I find head taxes and maybe poll taxes as more legit.

  16. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio may run for state governor.

    A man so disconnected from reality would be perfect in that office.

    1. Get Trump and Biden, and they can have a three-way.

  17. Germans using yellow badges to delineate against the unvaccinated.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1445670541159907334

    1. Had to happen sooner or later.

    2. Germans love their little pieces of flair.

      1. Look, we want you to express yourself, okay? Now if you feel that the bare minimum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, okay? You do want to express yourself, don’t you?

        1. How long before the German government encourages their citizens to express their religious affiliation along side their medical compliance status?

        2. Good luck with your (political cleansing), all right? I hope your (purges) go really, really well.

    3. It is different.

      This time the 1st class citizens are getting yellow badges.

      1. I guess they’re fast tracking those 2nd class trains.

    4. Wirklich?!?! Mein Gott!

  18. Congrats you can bake at home!
    NOw give me all your money
    Take you mandatory experimental medical procedure
    Say diversity means black can’t be objective
    And any disagreement with the Gov is now terrorism
    Enjoy your reason libritarians

  19. “Troubled student loan forgiveness program gets an overhaul”
    […]
    “The Biden administration is moving to relax the rules for a student loan forgiveness program that has been criticized for its notoriously complex requirements — a change that could offer debt relief to thousands of teachers, social workers, military members and other public servants….”
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/troubled-student-loan-forgiveness-program-gets-overhaul-n1280885

    So if you become a faithful government worker bee, you get free bucks!
    I don’t think that’s a message we want to send.

    1. Especially since they are already paid more than private sector and have the benefit of being nearly impossible to fire.

    2. “So if you become a faithful government worker bee, you get free bucks!
      I don’t think that’s a message we want to send.”

      Correct. Except that SOME people in government do want that message sent. Maybe most of them.

    3. It’s exactly the message they want to send.

    4. Once we all work for the government it will make sense.

  20. “Twitter has started adding trigger warnings to some discussions.”

    Meh. Universities have been doing this for a couple of decades, and now lead the way by banning content that some students might find objectionable.

    Come to think of it, TV producers and regulators did this back in the 50s and 60s. And now universities have achieved the same intellectual achievement of Gilligan’s Island and F Troop.

    1. They managed to build a functioning radio out of coconuts? That’s a pretty impressive feat!

      1. More impressive is that most grievance study majors believe that a coconut radio is not only possible, but more eco-friendly.

      2. Are they palm sized?

  21. “The World Health Organization (WHO) announced that it is recommending the approval of the Mosquirix malaria vaccine,” Ron Bailey reports.

    Oh fuck, here comes another required jab.

    1. Odd reaction to a wonderful medical breakthrough. Are you that afraid of needles?

      1. We could stop banning DDT which was not harmful and did an amazing job of obliterating malaria…

        1. Fake news in reality
          Ddt did a job on me
          Now I am a real sicky
          Now I guess I’ll have to tell em
          That I got no cerabellum

          1. Gonna get my PHD
            Government’s gonna pay for me

      2. Nope. Are you that afraid of life?

        1. You bet I am! Nature is terrifying, with parasites and diseases and whatnot. I celebrate humanity’s continuing progress in developing medicines to push back against cruel nature.

          1. Wow. This is an embarrassing comment for you. I feel truly sorry for you.

      3. its not needed in North America

        1. Yeah, I know. So, unless Earth Skeptic has an upcoming trip to Africa or something, it’s unlikely he will have to endure being poked with a needle.

          1. You’re such a dumb cunt Dee.

          2. “Yeah, I know. So, unless Earth Skeptic has an upcoming trip to Africa or something, it’s unlikely he will have to endure being poked with a needle.”

            IOWs, asshole, your comments were worthless whining.

            1. There is no medicine that can cure her TDS.

  22. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio may run for state governor. Not everyone on his side is so thrilled. “Osama bin Laden is probably more popular in Suffolk County than Bill de Blasio,” Rich Schaffer, chairman of the county’s Democratic committee, told The New York Times.

    Rich went on to explain that being dead does not disqualify Democratic candidates or voters.

    1. Meanwhile, the one documented case in the 2020 election was a guy who used his dead mother’s vote for Trump.

      1. I keep forgetting how autistic people struggle with satire. Thanks for reminding me.

        1. And partisan Democrats and Republicans struggle with seeing when their own party has a huge stye in its eye.

          1. Everyone is partisan but White Mike:

            The White Knight
            January.6.2021 at 5:07 pm
            It is now crystal clear Trump is monster. If you still support him, you are a bad person. There is no ambiguity, no wiggle room anymore.

        2. And, by the way, nothing wrong with being autistic.

          1. Plenty wrong with being whiny lefty pile of shit, asshole.

          2. The Autist formerly known as Mike.

      2. Now do the 50k doue votes for Biden in arizona

        1. only 7k of those were double votes, 5k double votes in Ga admitted to. Multiple people arrested in texas and California…

          But Mike thinks only one case of fraud exists…

      3. There is more than one documented case dummy.

  23. The joke used to be about asking two economists, get three opinions. Now it must be “Ask two lawyers about the concept of ‘standing’ and get three opinions.”

    1. I hate standing as it is more often than not used to avoid legal discussions.

      I dont think a judge should rule on standing issues unless they can find it identify someone with standing first.

  24. I kinda wish the courts protected all individual rights as vigorously as it defends abortion.

    1. I wish reason talked about individual rights as much as ENB does abortion.

      1. Hard to be a progressitarian and talk too much about individual rights.

    2. It’s be nice to acknowledge that there are valid libertarian arguments on both sides of the issue. There are valid libertarian arguments that abortion is immoral, from a libertarian perspective, and there are valid arguments, from a libertarian perspective, that abortion should be legal anyway. Because I land on the side that it should be legal is no reason to be completely dismissive of legitimate libertarian arguments against abortion, and yet you’d think abortion for libertarians were a litmus test like free speech or free markets. It’s not.

      The LP didn’t take a stand either way on abortion for a long time, and when they started unnecessarily dividing people on the issue, it was a mistake. There isn’t anything about being pro-life that should dissuade people from self-identifying as libertarian, and everything we do to make pro-life people feel unwelcome as libertarians is shooting ourselves in the foot. For a lot of people, being anti-abortion seems to be about making Christians feel unwelcome, and anyone who intentionally tries to limit our appeal to atheists is being foolish.

      1. I doubt one can go broke betting on the libertarian “thinkers” screwing things up royally.

        1. I’m always suspicious of the LP. The belief that politicians are the ultimate solution to our problems is fundamentally anti-libertarian, and the LP seems to attract a leadership who want to seize power and inflict libertarianism on the country. The LP is supposed to be a marketing tool. It’s not the means to power. Libertopia happens when we persuade a critical mass of the American people to share our values, and once that happens, the politicians we already have will be falling all over themselves to be more libertarian than each other. I have no faith in politicians.

          I have no faith in Joe Manchin. I have faith in the people of West Virginia to hold Joe Manchin accountable if he crosses them. Persuade the people of West Virginia to be libertarian, and Joe Manchin (or whomever replaces him) will become libertarian. The people who are attracted to the LP seem to want to talk about what we’ll inflict on these people when we seize power (and in this case, they don’t want it to be anti-abortion laws). What they should be concerned with is looking at what the American people should inflict on our politicians–and casting as wide a net as possible.

          Libertarianism is the idea that people should be free to make choices for themselves. There are genuine libertarian abortion supporters who believe that women should be free to make choices for themselves, and there are genuine libertarian supporters who believe the woman’s choice was made when she willingly engaged in activity that could create a child–a child whose right to make a choice needs to be respected. When libertarians get to the point that we’re so prolific and so influential that we can split ourselves on this issue and decide it once and for all, we’ll be in Libertopia. We’ve got a long way to go on a hundred other issues that don’t divide us before we get there.

          1. Skepticism of the LP is healthy and reasonable, and I’m a dues-paying member.

            I’ve been reading Samuel Edward Konkin III recently and he had some good thoughts on the topic.

          2. A woman’s choice does not have to be made until she finds she is pregnant. She cannot make that choice before then. As you say her activity “could” lead to pregnancy but then she has a choice whether or not to continue with that pregnancy. That choice should be hers alone based on what she believes and not on what anyone else, including ‘pro-lifers’, believe.
            It is not libertarian to deny a woman that right.

      2. Agree with most of what you said. I see arguments on both sides, and am frustrated with the extremists on both sides.

        But being frustrated with the extremists includes frustration with people who are anti-abortion for religious reasons and do not acknowledge that other people are not followers of their religion.

        1. So, if somebody genuinely believes abortion is murder…they should just get over it because you disagree?

          Slave owners felt the same.

          1. It goes to the point yes you can be anti abortion for religious reasons but you can’t convince a non religious person by using religious dogma. quoting the bible to a non-believer will only fall on deaf ears, you have to use their language.

            1. I don’t think the sanctity of life or women choosing to willingly engage in activity that might create a child is religious dogma. I think religious people may be more susceptible to these arguments, but the basic arguments still remain when they’re drained of religious dogma. The Special Responsibility argument, for instance, remains as it is regardless of whether there is a God.

              1. The biggest departure is trying to convince a non-religious person that a clump of cells, while it is still a clump of cells, is a person.

                1. You’re a horrible, immoral monster, Dee.

            2. I suppose someone, somewhere might oppose abortion purely on Bible quotes, but most follow the argument that unborn children are are human individuals, humans have a right not be killed out of hand. Their premise that humans have a right to life may be religiously informed, but it is not the sole basis of the argument, especially since that is part of the USAs founding belief.

              1. The biggest place where religion influences is when someone has the idea of a soul being paired with the embryonic cells at conception.

                Whereas a non-religious person doesn’t necessarily see a problem with aborting the child while it is before some threshold: doesn’t have a nervous system yet, doesn’t have a heartbeat yet, isn’t viable yet, pick a line to draw.

          2. No, he is saying if you do not agree with abortion rights at any time you’re a religious fanatic.

        2. Stop lying about being a centrist.

        3. Agree with most of what you said. I see arguments on both sides, and am frustrated with the extremists on both sides.

          You are a pro-abortion extremist.

      3. “It’s be nice to acknowledge that there are valid libertarian arguments on both sides of the issue.”

        Agreed. If one views an unborn child as a human being, and therefore, at least a potential “person” under the constitution, it can be difficult not to view abortion as a violation of the NAP. On, the other hand, if one does not view the unborn child in this manner, it’s difficult not to view attempting to control another person’s body as a violation of the NAP. (Yeah, I know, it’s oversimplified).

        1. See my comment above about the Special Responsibility argument. It isn’t just about the personhood of the fetus. It’s about whether the mother consented to the responsibility of carrying the fetus to term when she willingly engaged in activity that might create a child. Because the pro-choice people call themselves that, doesn’t mean there aren’t any valid arguments against abortion that take their freedom of choice into consideration. It isn’t just about valuing the life of the fetus, i.e.

          1. Has Special Responsibility ever been a libertarian principle?

          2. As I said, Ken, it’s an oversimplification. I also have a responsibility every time I drive an automobile, since even if innocent of any wrong-doing, much less “intention,” there is still a chance my driving said vehicle could result in someone’s death. We have a solution to that, of course, in liability insurance.

            My stance is that the rights of the woman to control her body overrides the rights of the unborn. And I admit I am not completely comfortable with that, but, on this issue, it’s rather difficult not to choose a side.

            1. And I think we should understand that it isn’t necessarily about choice–if the woman willingly engaged in activity that might create a fetus. And, again, I can point out and make this argument in spite of the fact that, like most Americans, I both think that elective abortion is immoral and should be legal. I think it’s unacceptable for the government to force them to carry a fetus to term against their will–even if they’re ethically obligated to do so. But I understand those who disagree!

              As libertarians, we should be able to make the case for those who disagree with us–within the spectrum of valid libertarian arguments. There would be disagreements among libertarians in Libertopia, and abortion would probably be one of them. We should all walk together towards Libertopia anyway. That was my original point about this: There are legitimately libertarian arguments on both sides of this issue, and there is no good reason to divide ourselves along this line.

              1. “There are legitimately libertarian arguments on both sides of this issue, and there is no good reason to divide ourselves along this line.”

                And I agree.

          3. What if she willingly engaged in activity that might create a child but had already decided she did not want to carry any pregnancy to full term? Does she not have the right to make that decision and to follow it through?

            1. What is that saying we always pull out when a politician has a law that causes consequences they didn’t want. Unintended consequences aren’t unforseen. I’ve already decided that I don’t want to smash my finger when I swung the hammer at it. Doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a consequences and risk that I accepted when I started swinging the hammer.

              1. Parenting is not a consequence unless you are forced to become a parent against your own will. If abortion is one of the options for someone who becomes pregnant then parenting is not necessarily a consequence. It is a choice and a choice that should by made by the only person who has that choice. If you want to take away that choice then it is a consequence of becoming pregnant. You would want absolute certainty that you have the right to take that choice away.

        2. The constitution protects people and not ‘potential people’. The fact that you have to qualify your description of the fetus shows that you are not convinced that it is fully a person.

          1. “The constitution protects people and not ‘potential people’. The fact that you have to qualify your description of the fetus shows that you are not convinced that it is fully a person.”

            The law defines a “person,” not me.

            1. So why call it a ‘potential person’ if the law says it is a person? Why is there any need to distinguish?

      4. How do edgelords view it?

    3. But I learned in college that abortion is special because it — unlike, for instance, the right to own a gun — is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

      #SaveRoe
      #SUPER-PRECEDENT

    4. I kinda wish the courts protected all individual rights as vigorously as it defends abortion.

      The freedom to determine what to do with your own body (parts included) is the most fundamental freedom there is. Individual rights start there.

      I know conservatives believe don’t believe in individual rights though.

      1. “The freedom to determine what to do with your own body (parts included) is the most fundamental freedom there is.”

        Well, not if someone won’t take the vaccine that Biden delivered. I’m comfortable with the government mandating vaccination — or at least, making life virtually impossible for those who refuse.

        #LibertariansForMandatoryVaccination

        1. Certainly the right to self determination extends to the Fundie-Nuts who won’t allow blood transfusions and subsequently die – including their dependents.

          No federal or state mandates!

          Stupidity is a right too.

        2. “The freedom to determine what to do with your own body (parts included) is the most fundamental freedom there is.”

          Are you accusing the man that impregnated you of rape? Because if you willingly chose to do something with your body that created a fetus, you may have an obligation to that fetus. And if you didn’t get pregnant on purpose, that doesn’t really change anything. People who accidentally run over someone’s child are still responsible for the damage they cause–even if it was unintentional. They take responsibility for the damage they may cause with their car when they willingly choose to pull the car out of the driveway.

          1. What obligations could you have towards a fetus? Obligations only apply between human beings. It is inherent in the definition of the word. You have to establish that a fetus is a human before you can begin to talk of obligations.

      2. At least the suddenly-emerged group of conservatives who adamantly defend one’s right to host a virus in one’s own body that can spread to other people by the simple, involuntary act of breathing.

        1. Not to mention that Bad People exhale CO2, and that stuff is the worst poison ever. How dare they!

          1. I guess, if you don’t like plants.

            1. Progs have been pushing to treat CO2 as a pollutant for years. In case you were unaware.

        2. Well, we believe in bodily autonomy. And the woman has that until the baby has a heart beat and is, thus, a separate life. THEY have body autonomy too and she invited them in. She cannot just kill them.

          1. You called it a baby before it had a heart beat. How can a baby not have a heart beat or are just trying to emotionally manipulate the debate?

        3. You demand nobody ever has any type of negative externality in any of their actions to protect you from general life. You’re pathetic.

      3. haha please.

        Mr Buttplug, now do every other body part and medical condition.
        what a joke you are.

      4. In what sphere is such a right so vigorously defended by the courts other than abortion?

        Your right to do whatever with your body is severely curtailed in many aspects.

      5. You mean, like the freedom to not be forced to labor on behalf of others?

    5. It’s a start.

  25. I don’t know how legit these videos are, and I don’t care what state it’s in. Seeing college kids chanting “Fuck Joe Biden” should be a disturbing sign for the Democrats. Even at schools in Mississippi, Indiana, and West Virginia, you expect the college kids to be further to the left than the rest of the state (see Austin). Are those Mets fans chanting, “Fuck Joe Biden”? We haven’t seen moms changing “Fuck Joe Biden” at a kids’ soccer game yet, but give it a few months.

    I know, “Fuck Joe Biden” is becoming a meme in the sense that even people who don’t know or care about politics may think it’s funny at this point, but that should probably be even more disturbing for the Democrats. “Fuck Joe Biden may be uniting the country like Joe Biden can’t! And if “Fuck Joe Biden” becomes more widespread than an LOLcat meme come 2022, what does that mean for the Democrats’ chances to maintain control of the Senate?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0jGIRzCEEY

    1. P.S. Fuck Joe Biden.

      1. Right back at ya.

    2. It looks like fraternity and sorority types in those videos. Definitely not representative of the larger student body.

      1. Yes, because they aren’t cool like the “RESPECT MUH PRONOUNS” activists, eh Sullum?

        1. There are some cool people in fraternities but on average and by design they are total dick trash.

          1. Welcome to college. ALL students are dick trash.

            They are just cooler than the “RESPECT MUH PRONOUNS” clowns that people think speak for others on campus.

            1. Fair enough. I’m not crazy about sensitive people either.

              1. Even though you are one.

          2. Not like the BLM and antifa “protest” crowds, right?

      2. In other words the people the other students pretty much universally dislike the most.

      3. “It looks like fraternity and sorority types in those videos.”

        You think it’s a good sign for Democrats if fraternity and sorority types are publicly chanting “Fuck Joe Biden” during football games–like they’re cheering for their favorite team–is that what you’re saying?

        1. He is saying frat boys are self selected wingnut types.

          Go to the library and see what the dorks/smart kids are chanting.

          1. Fuck JavaScript!

            1. Are you saying nerds are less tribal than frat boys are?

              1. I wasn’t, but is suppose nerds are less tribal as a consequence of being less social in general.

              2. turd lies. It’s what turd does.
                Fuck off and die, turd.

            2. They love that Javascript shit nowadays.

            3. Poor Dee tried to make a funny.

        2. It’s a damn good sign. It means Joe Bdien is your President.

          1. If you think fraternity and sorority types chanting “Fuck Joe Biden” in stadiums all over America is a good sign for Democrats come 2022, then you’re delusional.

            1. You’re such trashy and hypocritical people. God forbid a black guy kneels out of anguish but rich white spoiled trash can scream “fuck the President” and the same people lectoring the black guy about bringing politics into sport are nowhere to be found. Basically shit like this is why I don’t like you mfers.

              1. What does that have to do with what I said?

                Fraternity and sorority types chanting “Fuck Joe Biden” in stadiums all over America is a BAD sign for Democrats come 2022–regardless of whether I’m a trashy and hypocritical person.

                And you trying to make an irrelevant distinction between college kids was absurd–regardless of whether I’m a trashy and hypocritical person.

                Are any of your ideas anchored in facts or logic?

                1. Yeah, Strazele, don’t you know Ken is the wushu master of logical thinking!

                  1. Reminder that Mike considers it his job to troll Ken:

                    Mike Laursen
                    September.18.2021 at 11:38 am
                    SQRLSY, can you cover for me today? In a typical day, I usually post a comment or two pointing out logical flaws, contradictions and partisanship in Ken’s essays

                    As ever, asking the comment’s biggest shitposter to help harass someone.

                    https://reason.com/2021/09/18/environmentalists-pan-unintended-environmental-consequences-of-flawed-agricultural-laws/#comment-9110728

                  2. Still carrying the HO2 for the left.

              2. “God forbid a black guy kneels out of anguish”

                …one is taking all attention onto himself (note: these same athletes do not kneel WHEN THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING). How about Kaepernick kneel after every touchdown he threw?

                Sure, he’d never kneel, but it’d show some spine. Sacrifice HIS glory to highlight his alleged cause.

                1. Then nobody would even know he was protesting.

              3. You’re such trashy and hypocritical people. God forbid a black guy kneels out of anguish but rich white spoiled trash can scream “fuck the President” and the same people lectoring the black guy about bringing politics into sport are nowhere to be found. Basically shit like this is why I don’t like you mfers.

                And they act all offended on behalf of the biggest piece of shit that ever existed – Donald Trump.

                1. No, you’re the biggest piece-of-shit that ever existed, you fat, fifty-centing pedophile Nazi.

                  Hey Goebbels Jr, didn’t you promise on Tuesday to triple your DNC shilling? Where’d you go yesterday? You brought a new kid to your basement or something?

                2. Reason treats Trump so unfairly.

                  1. Not unfairly enough for you, right?

                    The White Knight
                    January.6.2021 at 5:07 pm
                    It is now crystal clear Trump is monster. If you still support him, you are a bad person. There is no ambiguity, no wiggle room anymore.

          2. Well, if Trump was still President, we’d have fewer COVID deaths and fewer dead Marines in Afghanistan. And gas would be cheaper.

            1. And gas would be cheaper.

              Shitty 1.6% GDP = cheap gas

              1. turd lies. If there are numbers in a turd post, they are cherry picked and the actual numbers prove the opposite of what turd is lying about.
                turd lies; it what turd does. It’s ALL turd does.

    3. Dude, it is not uniting the country. It is more of the immature, divisive, partisan bullshit that is harming our country.

      1. But when you called Trump names, it was patriotic.

      2. But kneeling…that was uniting. Is that right?

      3. Demanding people show “Respect” for the President is a laughable want after the last 4 years. Fuck you and fuck Joe Biden.

      4. Don’t you get whiplash from changing direction that fast, Mike?

    4. It’s our new national anthem!

      What I find more amazing that sports leagues have really forgotten who their core customer is. There’s probably 3 Barstool type fans in the stadium for every one with gentry sensibilities, and that’s after decades of trying to turn the experience into a luxury good.

      The Devils killed off Rock & Roll part II as their goal song several years ago after ever so much tut-tutting from a certain corner of the media/fanbase (and probably the league). So instead some dude with a vuvuzela plays it after our lame goal song ends and most of us proceed to tell the goalie he sucks just as we’ve been doing for decades. I hope the owners are properly embarrassed about it, since that’s half the point.

      1. “One, two, three (or however many goals have been allowed at that point)…IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT!”

        Could be worse than the vuvuzela; the Blue Jackets have that stupid cannon. Since we’re a week away, a hearty “Puck Fittsburgh” seems in order. I’d imagine we’ll not be getting a “Fuck Joe Biden” chant in DC, though.

    5. It’s “Let’s Go Brandon”, comrade.

  26. jeffy and his gal Friday are apologizing for Biden’s ‘mean tweets’ this morning.

    https://reason.com/2021/10/06/biden-to-gop-get-out-of-the-way-so-you-dont-destroy-the-country/#comment-9144823

    Continuing to commiserate with fearful women is not the answer. They need to be slapped and told to grow the fuck up and take responsibility for themselves. They have handed the government over to the looters to protect them and their children from a bad cold, and if things go badly, the People may never get it back.

    1. I don’t know what was said, but I’m sure it was stupid. It’s not like they could possibly imagine that we’re about to become progressives because of their activity here. All they do is provoke intense reactions to their stupidity. We sometimes argue about whether they’re dishonest or just too stupid to understand what they read, but whatever the explanation is for that, we should all at least agree that their intention here isn’t to inform or persuade. There is no reason for them to believe that what they do will be informative or persuasive. They’re just trolls–even if they’re especially stupid ones–and the way to handle trolls is to mute them.

      1. Your loss.

        I am a libertarian, although you regularly slander me as being a progressive. I regularly point out factual and logical holes in your comments, and you, who wrote a comment about how we should listen to and learn from our critics, hide from my critiques. You are so full of partisan suppositions.

        1. You are a dumbass.

        2. I am a libertarian, although you regularly slander me as being a progressive.

          Real libertarians vote for Trump and his Big Government policies!

          Because abortion!

          1. And they spend fewer trillions!

            1. Because what’s the difference between spending 1.5 and 6, right?

              1. Biden hasn’t signed off on that $3.5 trillion “human infrastructure” monstrosity yet.

                If he does I will declare him “Worse than Trump”.

                Write it down.

                Just like I donate to OSI and their anti-socialist and anti-fascist policy.

                1. OSI is socialist and fascist. Everything it advocates is socialist and fascist. It’s owned by an authoritarian fuck who actually pilfered Jewish homes for the Nazis as a teen. The same fuck who deliberately tried to destroy the British pound and its economy for personal gain.

                  It’s like if the Soviet Union had declared that they were anti-communist because of bad PR, and then continued on with business as usual.

                  1. You’re an idiot and a fascist.

                    OSI has a public record of fighting socialism and fascism.

                    1. turd lies. If there are numbers in a turd post, they are cherry picked and the actual numbers prove the opposite of what turd is lying about.
                      turd lies; it what turd does. It’s ALL turd does.

                    2. OSI has a public record of fighting socialism and fascism.

                      OSF funded BLM and paid the travel costs of the “Antifa” brownshirts. They funded illegal oppo campaigns and created fraudulent documents to do it. They fund racist CRT university programs. They promote the Green New Deal. They are everything that the German National Socialists were in 1932.

                      They are the very embodiment of socialism and fascism… and so are you.

        3. I am a libertarian… You are so full of partisan suppositions.”

          You’re an authoritarian partisan troll who isn’t actually fooling anyone.

          Partisan:
          The White Knight
          January.6.2021 at 5:07 pm
          It is now crystal clear Trump is monster. If you still support him, you are a bad person. There is no ambiguity, no wiggle room anymore.

          Troll:
          Mike Laursen
          September.18.2021 at 11:38 am
          SQRLSY, can you cover for me today? In a typical day, I usually:
          – post a comment or two pointing out logical flaws, contradictions and partisanship in Ken’s essays, which he regards as examples of flawless logical thinking
          – post a comment or two pointing out that Ashli Babbitt was not a saint and the January 6th MAGA rioters were violent
          – post one “Fuck Tulpa!” comment

          Here’s how libertarian White Mike is:
          The White Knight
          December.18.2020 at 8:08 pm
          It is a example of well-crafted, free market enabling regulation.

        4. You know… if you actually were a libertarian, you wouldn’t have to remind people every day that you thought you were one.

        5. Hey Dee, have you considered stealing Ken’s handle to teach him a lesson like you did with me? You should try it, he’ll probably start paying attention to you again if you do.

  27. UW Medicine to deny organ transplants to unvaccinated patients

    https://www.q13fox.com/news/uw-medicine-to-deny-organ-transplants-to-unvaccinated-patients

    don’t waste!

    1. And if that patient kills the entire hospital staff I would rule not guilty

      1. Oh like this guy:

        A Maryland man allegedly murdered his brother and sister-in-law because the brother, a pharmacist, was “killing people with the COVID shot,” as he allegedly told one person. Howard County police say Jeffrey Burnham, 46, shot and killed Brian Robinette, 58, and Kelly Sue Robinette, 57, last week. Burnham allegedly gave a paranoid warning to his mother, Evelyn, before the attack, saying, “Brian knows something.” She had called local police because of her son’s paranoid ravings, according to charging documents. 

        https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-cr-burnham-follow-20211006-srubyenoujenvkd5igalidruwm-story.html

        1. Did his brother also deny organ transplants to unvaccinated patients? Because then he would have some moral authority.

        2. The amount of false equivalency you can conjur up is staggering

        3. Now do government agencies shutting down businesses, schools, churches, and other public gatherings because of delusional interpretations of risks. And remember to tally up the murders associated with insane people pushed over the edge.

        4. Nice, conflate one guy with obvious mental health issues with the 100,000,000 of the population that is not buying what the government is trying way too hard to sell them.

          What the fuck is wrong with you? You appeal constantly to Science! and yet lack any logical consistency whatsoever.

      2. To be fair, there are a number of theoretical murder situations where if I was seated as a juror I wouldn’t find them guilty. I know that is terrible, but I’m not perfect.

  28. The U.S. has entered its most authoritarian phase in history, with trillions in debt, a spending bill that will crash the economy and force socialist nonsense down our throats, and millions of people subjected to medical apartheid as they are coerced into an unproved, experimental medical treatment in order to make a living. And Reason is worried that women in Texas will no longer have easy access to killing babies they are easily able to prevent growing inside them in the first place?

    The hell you say.

    This magazine grows increasingly clownier by the day.

    1. translation from wingnut speak:

      WE NEED A WHITE PROTESTANT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT!

      1. Kill your self you pedo

      2. Given that the alternative brand’s message is

        WE NEED A BLACK TRANSGENDER SOCIALIST PRESIDENT

        I will line up with the wingnuts.

        1. I would too.

        2. Hey, here’s an idea. What about not lining up with either of those teams.

          1. Asshole, I’d prefer you don’t vote at all; fewer votes by idiots is always positive.

        3. Shreek can hardly wait to address the first transgender socialist president as “Xer”, while celebrating the first national Black Sabbath by eating roast baby and raping an underage goat.

          1. Those that celebrate black sabbath are paranoid war pigs

          2. How many underage goats would that put him at?

            1. No kid left unmolested.

  29. Is there any precedent for a federal court to enjoin a state court from even hearing a lawsuit?

    1. Or, as I’ve said earlier, enjoining people not party to a suit in the first place.

  30. LOL

    The brilliant Robert Reich has some OBL-style math to express how well billionaires are doing under Biden.

    Elon Musk’s wealth surpassed $200 billion this week. To put that into perspective, it would take the median U.S. worker 4,815,216 years to make that much.

    Democrats control Washington DC?
    Billionaires like Elon Musk are rapidly getting richer?
    What should we do?
    Elect more Democrats!

    #OBLsFirstLaw

    1. It’s funny when people confuse wealth with earnings.

  31. I checked Wikipedia, and Robert Pitman, the abortion judge, was elevated to the bench with the applause of Republicans and Democrats. He is also So Brave (and so fabulous) for being the first openly gay judge in the 11th Circuit.

    1. So he is unlikely to get himself or anyone else pregnant. Where is his standing?

      1. Again, the Texas Law said non-parties to abortion without standing could sue parties to abortion. Texas dealt it, now it has to smell it.

    2. “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’
      “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I do not fear God or care about men, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she will not eventually wear me out with her coming!'”
      And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly.

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

      If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

      This too, is in the playbook.

      1. I thought rule 4 was no poofters?

        1. For the Religious Right crowd, it’s a clause in all it’s rules. Even though poofters, acting as such, are responsible for exactly zero abortions.

          1. Wooosh

    3. So surprising, that an Obama-appointed Austin judge would have a problem with this law. Great job nominating him, Cornyn and Hutchison.

    4. He is also So Brave (and so fabulous) for being the first openly gay judge in the 11th Circuit.

      So they went judge shopping and found one that promised the ruling they were looking for.

    5. Thank you. The relevant information of the judge’s name and political affiliation was oddly omitted from the article. Must have been an oversight.

      So one person disagrees with the law. That’s really all that happened yesterday. Eventually, we’ll see whether 5/9 do or don’t. I bet they disagree with it as well, 6-3 or 5-4.

  32. “Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, [Texas] contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”

    Texas has not taken any action and didn’t deprive anyone of anything. It opened them up to lawsuits. The problem is that the Progressives who run the clinics are fucking cowards. They have zero confidence that they can convince a jury that they are not murderers.

    And the judges? They could just instruct the juries that they can effectively nullify the law by finding for the defendants. But they will never do that because it would empower the People. So they just cockblock the elected representatives.

    There will never be a libertarian moment.

    Fuck them all.

    1. Fuck them all”

      This can’t be overstated.

  33. Twitter is testing several new prompts “that warn before you jump into a conversation that could get heated,” notes The Verge:

    A platform run by children.

  34. The government may start defaulting on Social Security payments if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling.

    I see that monument budgeting has been a kicked up a notch.

  35. “From the start, the district court’s decision is critical of Texas’ actions. “A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established,”

    Right beside the sacred constitutional right to rape your cousin and the right to firebomb the homes of everyone who supports the winning baseball team.

    Remember how the founding father’s all got together and argued the date of viability?

    Here’s a lying, dishonest judge who needs to be dipped in tar and feathers and locked in stocks as proscribed in the Constitution.

  36. The DOJ is launching a new National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team.

    “Sir! Everything is decentralized, global, and algorithmic. There’s nothing we can do!”

    “Well there’s only one thing we can do. Grow the dept and ask for a bigger budget”

  37. The U.S. collected more than $7.6 billion in tariffs in August. “That’s an amount that exceeds even the highest single-month total during the Trump administration and one that dwarves monthly tariff revenue from earlier years,” notes Eric Boehm.

    Good thing we got rid of that Bad Orange Man and his reckless non-grownup policies.

  38. that dwarves monthly tariff revenue from earlier years,” notes Eric Boehm.

    Also, I hate to be that guy but come on, you’re a journalist.

    “dwarves” == more than one dwarf

    “dwarfs” == present tense of the verb ‘to dwarf’

    1. And since libertarians loathe income taxes…what, exactly, is the beef with tariffs?

      1. Orange Man liked tariffs so they are bad.

        More seriously, tariffs are paid for by consumers.

        1. Pedantry alert:

          Tariffs are passed on to consumers. They are paid for by the broker for the importer.

          1. It would be unfair and absurd to think they would pass along increased costs to the consumer.

      2. Its the only allowed tax in the constitution. So the non libritarians at reason hate it

    2. that dwarves monthly tariff revenue from earlier years

      I have to admit that I couldn’t figure this out at first. My brain assumed it was a reference to some fantasy book or TV series and couldn’t grasp that it was a misspelling.

      And we would have to assume that since the men of Laketown were rather pissed when Thorin claimed the title of King Under the Mountain and offered no recompense for the killing of Smaug, that there is no way they would have paid any tariffs for lake travel to the dwarves for the years the throne was unclaimed.

      1. Not sure but he always been short with them.

  39. The new Dave Chappell special is …. Special.

    He issues forth a sermon on cancel culture with passionate condemnation delivered via poignant twists.

    He is a national treasure.

    And a better advocate for free expression than the professional free expression advocates we all know and love.

    1. He’s a national treasure as both a comedian and a commentator. Clearly of the left, but you can tell the disdain he has for the frustrated aging white hippie progressivism that is paramount within the coalition. And they have no idea what to do with him.

      1. Most of the most interesting cultural and political commentators are red-pilled lefties. Greenwald, Taibbi, Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Stephen Fry, Rowan Atkinson, etc.

        1. The lefties got P.J. O’Rourke, Nicolle Wallace, and that verbose twat from the Washington Post in trade.

          1. I hope that they’re enjoying their Kristol, Goldberg, Boot and French.
            Four neocon twats that thought themselves masters of the universe, with their little magazines and affected mid-Atlantic accents that made them sound like Frasier Crane’s gay uncle, perpetually explaining the subtle parallels between George W. Bush and Seneca.
            Now they’re the Democrat’s to treasure.

  40. The very concept of “standing”, and the dismissal of cases where a third party is inserting itself into the concerns of others, would seem to contradict the very essence of liberal-progressive values. Their entire political being requires stepping in to champion the interests of victims, often when the victims do not want help or even know they are victims.

    So, can we dismiss all liberal policies based on the concept of standing?

    1. That only works if the wrong people try to sue.

    2. Don’t disagree about progressives, but can we acknowledge that conservatives insert themselves into controlling other peoples’ lives, too.

      1. “”Okay, but look over there!! Conservatives!! and they’re doing something… probably…”

        1. Dee’s both sides is like someone with Tourette’s.

      2. They certainly try to and normally fail.

    3. The Texas Anti-Abortion Law threw out standing, so sauce for the goose and all that…

    4. Progressives are ruled by fear. Afraid to make their case in front of a jury. If they think they are right, why stop? The President, the Congress, the courts, and the media clearly have their back. Polling says a majority support abortion.

      What is the problem? Oh, right, they can’t claim to be the victim in an abortion case. Victimhood is their raison d’etre and they can’t function without it. Because despite its effectiveness on the masses, it often fails to sway individuals. 100,000,000 stated objections to abortion are not as intimidating as a potential 7 votes by jurors.

      Cowardly.

  41. The funniest thing about the “abortion issue” is that men are told that it is the woman’s decision, stay out of it. Sometimes pay for it, but stay out of it. Then when something controversial comes up about it, the number of men that suddenly have an opinion.

    Abortion is the biggest political smokescreen next to Social Security. When something comes up and they want to divert your attention from it, some politician makes a statement about “abortion” and all of the sudden everybody’s attention is drawn to it.

    1. Yup, and it is used by both major parties.

      1. Because the 21st century equivalent of Auschwitz is just some sort of political distraction.

    2. They are actually related though, because abortion has drastically reduced the population of young people, there are fewer people paying into social security

  42. In another, which seems like it appears if you try to reply to one of those intense conversations, is titled “let’s look out for each other” and lays out three bullet points to encourage empathetic and fact-based conversations.

    So Twitter is now firing bullets to encourage empathy?

    1. That triggers me!

  43. “From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,”

    This is a pretty absurdly broad interpretation. Descending into the post-modern ‘there is no truth’ and “words don’t mean things” madness:
    Woman A gets pregnant. Woman B, for whatever reason, feels that the clump of cells encumbers her (maybe she’s a life partner that doesn’t want a baby, maybe the father is her husband, whatever). Does The Constitution really defend Woman B’s unfettered ability to live her life the way she sees fit?

    Setting aside the murder and obviating the question as to whether murder is/is not OK at 8 days, 8 weeks, or 8 mos., this statement, in this case, is essentially getting to the core of saying, “Women with a history of making poor decisions can’t face any consequences, for any bad action, from anyone.” Is a pregnant woman really immunized by The Constitution to lawsuit or anything else that unduly violates her control over her life one way or the other because she’s pregnant (and doesn’t even want to be)?

    Helluva scenario to stake your libertarian bona fides on.

    1. Maybe more conceptually/concretely, a man cheats on his wife and gets his girlfriend pregnant; does The Constitution protect him (and his girlfriend) from exercising control over his life (their lives)? To what end? Is his wife completely unable to sue? What if the pregnant girlfriend claims it limits her ability to exercise control over her life? We’ve already fudged/set aside/skewed away from murder, is the wife of any legal consquence than a clump of cells?

      1. LOL! What about a community property state? Does a wife have any interest in her husband’s bastard?

  44. The male penis should have a warning tattoo:
    Inserting into a female vagina may result in a pregnancy.
    I used “male” and “female” to differentiate between cis and trans parts.

    1. Mine says “Welcome to Jamaica, have a nice day.”

      1. MK Ultra fine print? :p

      2. “‘We’? ‘We’ what?”

  45. We all know abortion must remain legal in the US right? And are we all aware of why? For those who don’t know, whites are afraid that blacks will out-copulate them and turn the whole country black, so abortion must remain available, at least to black mothers (and, god-forbid, white mothers carrying mulatto fetuses).

    What I’d like to see is an “Anti-racist” abortion law that bans abortions only for whites, preserving the “right” for blacks. Watch the woke-crowd’s heads explode as they try to parse “privilege for blacks” versus “death to black fetuses”.

    Ain’t I a stinker?

    1. While I’m not one to see racism everywhere, someone capable of condemning a baby to death is also capable of racism.

      But even if someone wants abortion legal just to “empower all women,” that’s also a bad thing, because it defines empowerment as killing the weak.

  46. The judge’s use of the woke phrase “pregnant individuals” tells me where he is coming from.

Please to post comments