Texas Prosecutors Blatantly Ignored the Law When They Charged a Woman With Murder 'by a Self-Induced Abortion'
As Starr County District Attorney Gocha Allen Ramirez belatedly conceded, that charge is explicitly prohibited by the Texas Penal Code.

A Starr County, Texas, grand jury last month indicted a 26-year-old woman, Lizelle Herrera, on one count of murder in connection with "a self-induced abortion." As Starr County District Attorney Gocha Allen Ramirez conceded yesterday, no such charge exists under state law. Yet somehow Ramirez's office presented that chimerical charge to the grand jury, which resulted in Herrera's unlawful arrest last Thursday. She spent two nights in jail before she was released on Saturday after posting a $500,000 bond.
In a press release he posted on Facebook yesterday, Ramirez announced that he would "immediately dismiss the indictment against Ms. Herrera," because "it is clear that Ms. Herrera cannot and should not be prosecuted for the allegation against her." He reached that conclusion after "reviewing applicable Texas law," which you might think his office would have done before seeking an indictment. Its failure to do so, aside from its implications for the abortion debate, was an egregious example of prosecutorial misconduct that flouted the rule of law and violated Herrera's constitutional rights.
The March 30 indictment against Herrera says she "intentionally and knowingly cause[d] the death of an individual" on or about January 7 "by a self-induced abortion." The indictment does not cite the statute that supposedly authorized this charge, but the language tracks with Title 5, Chapter 19 of the Texas Penal Code, which deals with "criminal homicide." It defines "intentionally or knowingly" causing an individual's death as murder, a first-degree felony punishable by life in prison.
Crucially in this context, Chapter 19 says it "does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is…conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child." Evidently the prosecutor who presented the charge against Herrera did not read that far, and the grand jurors did not bother to check the statute under which they ostensibly indicted Herrera. It looks like they applied their own moral intuition that self-induced abortion is tantamount to murder, even though Texas law explicitly says it is not.
At a protest on Saturday outside the jail where Herrera was being held, Rockie Gonzalez, founder of the abortion rights group La Frontera Fund, said "she miscarried at a hospital and allegedly confided to hospital staff that she had attempted to induce her own abortion, and she was reported to the authorities by hospital administration or staff." Ramirez said "it is clear that the Starr County Sheriff's Department did their duty in investigating the incident brought to their attention by the reporting hospital." But since it should have been clear from the outset that "the incident" was not a crime under Texas law, what was there to investigate?
If the sheriff's office had done its duty, it would have quickly determined that the allegation against Herrera did not amount to a crime. Instead it referred the matter to local prosecutors, who likewise failed to do their duty and instead presented the case to grand jurors, who failed to do their duty and instead approved a baseless criminal charge. As Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told the Associated Press when it covered the case on Saturday, "There is no statute in Texas that, even on its face, authorizes the arrest of a woman for a self-managed abortion."
There are only two possibilities here. Either the sheriff's office, the district attorney's office, and the grand jury did not know that, which is appalling enough, or they willfully disregarded the law, which is worse.
"Although with this dismissal Ms. Herrera will not face prosecution for this incident," Ramirez said yesterday, "it is clear to me that the events leading up to this indictment have taken a toll on Ms. Herrera and her family. To ignore this fact would be shortsighted. The issues surrounding this matter are clearly contentious, however based on Texas law and the facts presented, it is not a criminal matter."
That is not exactly an apology to Herrera, who was deprived of her liberty, had to hire a lawyer and raise bail (with help from La Frontera Fund), and had her life upended for no valid legal reason. In fact, Ramirez's statement can be read as an apology to abortion opponents who might wish that her conduct was a crime. The contentiousness of abortion has nothing to do with the question of whether Herrera did anything that justified her arrest. The answer to that question should have been obvious to everyone who had a hand in putting Herrera through this ordeal.
The homicide statute's exception for women who obtain or induce an abortion is of a piece with the general approach that Texas has taken to this issue. S.B. 8, which took effect last September, authorizes "any person" (except for government officials) to sue "any person" who performs or facilitates an abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected (typically around six weeks into a pregnancy). But the law explicitly says it does not authorize lawsuits against women who obtain prohibited abortions.
S.B. 4, enacted last July, made it a felony to provide abortion pills outside the restricted circumstances in which Texas allows their use. That law likewise says "a pregnant woman on whom a drug-induced abortion is attempted, induced, or performed in violation of this subchapter is not criminally liable for the violation."
As a matter of policy, in other words, the Texas legislature has decided that pregnant women who obtain or induce prohibited abortions are not civilly or criminal liable for doing so. Some abortion opponents—evidently including the hospital staff member(s) who reported Herrera, the sheriff's office investigators who received that report, at least one prosecutor in Ramirez's office, and the grand jurors who approved the indictment—may disagree with that policy. But that is the law in Texas, and their personal convictions are not a license to pretend otherwise.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is this story really that important that it had to be covered twice?
Yes
The other mention was the roundup. This is worth a libertarian look in more detail. Issues involved like the hospital divulging personal medical information or the police arresting someone who hasn't broken a law is way more salient than most of the shit this site has been giving lots of digital ink to lately.
I can't imagine why libertarians might be concerned that people are held by law enforcement and indicted by prosecutors and grand jurors for not breaking laws.
I wonder, what other current situation where people are being held, without bail, for 15+ months for non-violent, non-felony charges...
Crickets on that "other" situation by 100% real Libertarian editors here at Reason.
Why would Leo or the rest of the left-libertarians care, they're just progressives in drag.
I care. The J6 protestors being held is a travesty of justice.
But that doesn't mean I also don't care about this woman. So I really don't know what your point is here.
Probably because that isn't what's happening to the Jan. 6th rioters. No matter how many times their apologists claim it.
So they aren’t being held without bail?
You are correct. I am used to the Jan. 6th apologists saying they are being held without charges. Many of them are, in fact, being held without bail.
That is a common thing. If you are interested in advocating for bail reform, I believe there are a bunch of people here who would welcome your help.
What an aptly-named sockpuppet!
Called reverse nullification. Hopefully for the young woman she can discover birth control or perhaps more selective on sexual partners if they are not father material. Going through a self-abortion and then rushing to the hospital because of a "home abortion" isn't something she likely wants to repeat.
No one cares (nor should they) about your narrow-minded, outdated, and self-righteous beliefs about sex. If you want to live by them, great. If you want to force everyone else to live by them, please fuck off.
You know who else blatantly ignored the law?
The president?
Be more specific.
That's the point.
The only reason a certain immoral and philandering president became the darling of the Evangelical Right is because claimed to be pro-life.
Be more specific.
That's the point.
Very immoral.
Also quite philandering.
....BUT he's not on the take as our current (P)Resident.
So this story makes it clear that abortion is legal in Texas up until live birth if the mother induces it through her own conduct. I thought this was supposed to be an abortion restrictive state.
That is not an “abortion”, it is a self induced miscarriage and is very dangerous to the woman. Also if you make it illegal then prosecutors will send women to prison who had real miscarriages.
Self induced miscarriage is an abortion. Don't play semantics.
Pro choice advocates routinely argue that abortions (both chemical and procedural/surgical) are safer than live birth. Chemical abortion pills are available by mail for crying out loud. So why do you think what she did was so dangerous? Once she has performed her "conduct", she can immediately seek assistance of medical establishment for further management without fear of prosecution if it even necessary.
This story is national news precisely because such a story is so rare and an outlier. What makes you think a prosecutor is going to send a woman to prison for a 'not self-induced' miscarriage? On what grounds? With what evidence? You're fear mongering.
What women do is use a coat hanger, or nasty chemicals. They go to the ER bleeding heavily and with infections. Many do not make it. This is what happened before Roe, and will happen after. Don't kid yourself, this is what Republicans want.
And not fear mongering. This has been going on for a long time and will get worse.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/
https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/she-was-charged-with-manslaughter-after-a-miscarriage-cases-like-hers-are-becoming-more-common-in-oklahoma/
"They did note there was evidence of Poolaw using methamphetamine"
...seems relevant to the prosecution.
FYI for any skimmers: Both links refer to the same case.
Case is a woman on amphetamines convicted by jury trial of manslaughter with methamphetamine use as the cause of the loss of her fetus. Cause of death is disputed because her defense argued it could have been a chromosomal abnormality or other natural cause - obviously the jury didn't agree. Mollygodiva, presumably not on the jury, thinks the jury got it wrong.
I think charging a pregnant woman for what she chooses to put into her body during pregnancy is a very dangerous precedent to set.
How far do you want to go and what result should warrant charges? Fetal alcohol syndrome? Cocaine? Oxy? Prescription medications?
Does knowledge of the pregnancy mitigate the charges? How about side effects or drug interactions that were unknown to the pregnant woman?
I think that this is a terribly dangerous path to go down.
Another term for an involuntary miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. (Nobody wants to find anybody legally responsible for that.) A voluntarily induced miscarriage is an elective abortion. Causal factors matter. Intent matters. This objection is like saying child abuse should not be illegal because innocent parents will be hauled into court if their child dies from SIDS.
Perhaps showing a bit more maturity for a 26 year old and use birth control would ensure this never happened. She wasn't 15 years old.
Or refrain from sex until you get married...that works tool
Texas women still have individual rights and can pack heat. Non-individuals, not so much. I hear Saudi Arabia has a program to import mystical girl-bulliers manly enough to beseech the cops to cast that first stone.
re: "the grand jurors did not bother to check the statute"
Grand jurors are allowed to read and interpret the statutes for themselves? That is a surprise to me. I think it would be a surprise to most prosecutors and judges, too.
Maybe when the prosecutor goes back and reads the law they'll find something in there to indict themselves on for kidnapping and holding this woman against her will. Maybe...
I think it would be a surprise to [sic] judges, too.
I know at least one judge that would be surprised to learn that you can interpret and answer the question "What is a woman?" without a biology degree.
Seriously, couldn't be funnier that TX is going the way it is and ENB's team is happy Papa Joe put the historic first black female slave on the bench.
Petit juries are not supposed to investigate *anything* about the case or law on their own. This is justified by the fact that there is opposing counsel.
Grand juries only hear from the prosecuting attorney, which leads to the "ham sandwich" joke, but (personal experience) are perfectly capable of going off on their own, issuing subpoenas independently of the DA, requesting copies of statutes, etc.
Gocha is an apt name for a DA.
Pretty soon, unsafe self-abortions will be the only ones that remain legal in many states.
When the women die, will the "pro-lifers" reflect on their responsibility for the deaths?
> When the women die, will the "pro-lifers" reflect on their responsibility for the deaths?
I am a "pro-lifer" in that I am generally opposed to abortion. But the pro-life movement is off the rails and engaged in full-on kulturwar. I don't think they would be very upset at women going to jail over this, let alone dying. Women who get abortions are "The Other" and are undeserving of God's grace.
The modern pro-life movement is profoundly un-Christian.
The whole statement is abjectly retarded. It's like Hank Rearden's wife trying to shame him for her infidelity.
Why would anybody feel responsible for someone voluntarily developing even an outright disease and then trying and failing to treat themselves for it? The only way it makes sense is if you're some sort of hyper-puritanical zealot who would vaccinate people against their will and secretly loathe real Christians for not living up to your expectations of religious zealotry.
Could give a fuck if they die, that's a natural risk they take to be free of the responsibility of their past actions.
I'm appalled by the idea of prosecuting them.
LOL
Jesus hung out with outcasts and humble sinners that no one else would associate with. He said, Your sins are forgiven. Go, and sin no more." He didn't pat them on the head and say, "There, there. It's fine. Society made you bad things. No need to turn your life around. Rules against wrongdoing are judgy, mean-spirited, and probably racist."
I don't know what that means. But the Catholic church has been pretty consistent in that it considers abortion to be equivalent to murder, a mortal sin. An abortion causes automatic excommunication.
The modern pro-life movement just reflects long-held Christian beliefs.
Disaffected clingers bringing superstition to reasoned debate -- especially if gullible enough to expect their fairy tale-based nonsense to be taken seriously by competent adults -- are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Faux libertarians who support statist womb management and government micromanagement of ladyparts clinics are always a treat, too.
Not when they manage to infiltrate the platform committee, or get paid as Antichoice staff Quislings.
Yes, that pretty much describes you, doesn't it?
Again, that describes you.
"the Catholic church ... considers abortion to be equivalent to murder, a mortal sin."
Fortunately, any nearby confessional provides a convenient reset button for everything. A few Hail Marys, an Our Father or two, and BAM! Back into heaven.
Why do you think all the child rapists continue to be priests? God forgives, people.
Christians have since 1908 revelled in the killing and blinding of millions via government poisoning of alcohol. From 1919 to 1934 several thousand Americans and not a few Canadians were gunned down by government dry killers and shielded from punishment. Finally folks started hunting them down and voting out their Republican sponsors. (https://tinyurl.com/yckm98vf)
It is a bit weird to me that you appear to care so much for the life of a person who can get angry and protest, but not the life of someone who cannot.
We'll contemplate our responsibility for women dying when you contemplate your responsibility for unborn children dying.
There is no such thing as an unborn child. No matter how often zealots and propagandists say it, almost no one believes "conception" is the same as "a person with human rights".
Catholics, most protestants, Buddhists, and Muslims all believe that a human being is created either at conception or at around the first trimester.
My grandson still believes Santa Claus delivers gifts, eats cookies, rides a sleigh, and travels with reindeer.
Unlike superstitious adults, though, he will soon recognize that fairy tales aren't true.
You know, as a gay non-believer, I do have my disagreements with a lot of Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims. But ethically, they are still heads and shoulders above evil pricks like you.
"Catholics, most protestants, Buddhists, and Muslims all believe that a human being is created either at conception or at around the first trimester."
That's what the doctrine says but even in those faiths, belief in life beginning at conception is the minority view. There's literally no sub-category where the belief that life begins at conception is the majority belief.
America does not believe that life (meaning personhood, an independent organism, a being with full human rights, or however else you want to say "aborting it is murder") begins at conception.
You zealots have poured billions of dollars and decades of effort into convincing people that abortion is murder and you have changed nothing.
You now know that the only way to make your unconvincing bision a reality is to force the overwhelming majority of Amricans who disagree with you to do it your way.
I'm a father. I felt my children come to life at conception.
Abortion is murder, and 98% of children are killed for convenience. Not to save the mother, but killed to make their life easier.
I hope there's a hell for them to burn in.
"I felt my children come to life at conception."
You felt two cells "come to life"? I'm going to assume you mean that metaphorically?
"Abortion is murder"
Never has been, never will be.
"98% of children are killed for convenience"
I'd love to know where you get such "Xi Jinping wins election" numbers.
"I hope there's a hell for them to burn in."
Probably not the way you believe.
So what species is the genetic descendant of the mother (often called "the child") then?
Or are you claiming it only gains the genetic inheritance of the mother when it passes through the birth canal? What genes does it use before that?
Also, biology define the life cycle of mammals to begin at conception. This is widespread, and accepted by everyone for every species - except pro-abortionists in the case of humans.
From the moment of conception, it is a "child", a "human", and "alive". These are the basic, scientific, facts.
Whether the unborn human has "rights", how many/which ones, and under what circumstances the parent can kill it are matters unrelated to those facts.
You can argue in favor of abortion in many ways. But your arguments will always fall flat when you insist on denying the basic truths of what you are doing.
"From the moment of conception, it is a "child", a "human", and "alive". These are the basic, scientific, facts."
You seem to be using a weird science book, because scientifically the designations are embryo and fetus. No scientist uses "child" or "human" when talking, in scientific terms, about a an embryo or a fetus because, scientifically, they aren't called a child or a human.
Anti-abortion zealots, however, use those terms all the time to pretend that an embryo or a fetus is a person. It's almost like anti-abortionists are dishonest.
Should gun rights advocates feel responsible when an innocent person dies by a fatal shot from a legally purchased firearm? Then why should pro-life advocates feel responsible when a woman dies by bleeding out after killing her child in the womb? It's not as if abortion activists are ashamed when a woman commits suicide after procuring a legal abortion because she's overcome with guilt and remorse. (Oh, that's right. Per social progressives, there are no adverse psychological effects of abortion; and if there are, well, it's society's fault for being too conservative and stigmatizing it. #ShoutYourAbortion)
I agree there need to be more accessible alternatives to abortion for desperate mothers who feel trapped, but such scenarios are not a compelling argument for keeping feticide legal. Even abused women who kill their abusive husbands, understandably, stand trial for murder. Desperation is a mitigating circumstance, not a justification for blanket legalization.
When a woman dies because she self-induces an abortion, that is nobody's responsibility but her own.
The law can be changed to make self-induced abortions illegal as well.
No after the national divorce, States will advertise abortion tourism and those in life States can go on an abortion trip or maybe even an abortion cruise.
"Weekly cruises to Cabo from Long Beach on the Royal Pacific "Princess of the Seas"..for those in the market for an abortion and then to visit exotic destinations, meet interesting people, and if you get inpregnated again we have abortions right up to the last day of the cruise..."
The sooner the bettter.
See, all your hyperventilating about the horrors of outlawing abortion in some state is b.s. You just proved it yourself.
After hearing this issue go through a Sheriff's office, Prosecutor's office, and a Grand Jury, all of whom must be men, I look forward to the issue of Women's Rights being put in front of Justic Ketanji "The 'B' doesn't stand for Biologist!" Jackson.
Feminism and women's rights has done a bang up job over the last 50-60 yrs.
A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich even if no crime was committed.
Yet a prosecutor can't get a grand jury to indict a pig even if a capital crime was committed.
You have to go to Russia for that (as close as I can get to that, at least), and back to the beginning of the communist movement.
A pig was arrested for trespassing and because the owner wouldn't/couldn't pay the fine, it starved to death in the courtyard of the police station as no one would feed it.
Other side of prosecutorial discretion letting the bad guy out.
Abortion is murder. Hags like ENB need to cry a little louder.
For poor women Abortion is murder.
FIFY
Once upon a time murder implied taking life that could actually sustain itself. A point you FORCED reproduction Nazi's can't deal with.
Well, if you're a Nazi and believe in social Darwinism, that is true.
Nobody is "forcing reproduction" on anybody. Women are free not to have sex, to use contraceptives, and/or to prevent implantation.
Is that like having the freedom not to drive in case an accident happens and in every lethal accident creates 'murder' charges?
Or we'll just peg this B.S. against the wall; If it was really one person taking the life of another that Pro-Life is worried about then why won't they settle for a bill requiring doctors to try and survive fetal ejection.. (Frankly; because we all know the answer to that; It's not 'murder' at all -- It's FORCED reproduction.)
98% of abortions, by clinic reporting, are for convenience. Not to save the mother's life, not for incest - they kill their children for the convenience.
It's really easy to not have a baby, and brings along a whole host of benefits when you learn responsibility and forethought.
What child? What baby? UR trying to push Gov-Guns in other people's faces with delusions you have created as EXCUSES to dictate. Just like the leftards do.
That's certainly not all that "pro-life" is worried about. They are worried about promiscuous and extramarital sex and how the availability of abortion contributes to those.
"They are worried about promiscuous and extramarital sex"
But they aren't totalitarians at all, right? I mean, we should be allowed to control what everybody else chooses to do in their bedrooms because ... why exactly?
Your morality is not superior to anyone else's. Make your own decisions, but stay out of everyone else's life.
I'm not defending pro-lifers, I'm correcting your misrepresentation of their position.
Abortion is a medical procedure, carried out by licensed physicians at medical facilities.
I'll be happy to stay out of the lives of other Americans as soon as they get their hands out of my pocketbook. As long as I am forced to pay for the consequences of other people's sex lives, I am going to use my political power to have a say in their sex lives.
Not, it is not at all like that. I leave it to you to figure out the difference.
For people who believe that a fetus is a human being with the same rights as other human beings, that is not acceptable for the same reason a boat captain can't just throw people overboard.
Nope. Never has been. And, if rational people can keep fighting off the lunatics, never will be.
But I admit I am not as certain of rational people winning any more.
Abortion has been considered murder by mainstream religions for millennia.
I don't see what is "rational" about creating a society that encourages promiscuity and the use of abortion for "family planning".
#1. Religions shouldn't have Gov-Guns at their helm.
#2. USA Gov-Guns should be for Individual Liberty not Social Engineering.
#3. The Nazi-Regime pimping "Family Planning" by all means is Anti-American and thus why it's a Nazi-Regime.
Yet social engineering and destroying individual liberties is what you advocate.
"Abortion has been considered murder by mainstream religions for millennia."
Not by most people within those religions, when you actually ask them about it.
And since we are in America and the First Amendment protects us from other people's religion, that is not a good or valid justification. In fact, that makes it downright anti-American and anti-Constitutional.
"I don't see what is "rational" about creating a society that encourages promiscuity and the use of abortion for "family planning"."
What is so awful about promiscuity? Sex is a healthy part of normal human interpersonal relationshups.
The US Constitution only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.
It results in STDs, abortions, and single parenthood, all of which taxpayers like me have to pay for. And as long as we have to pay for it, we are going to have a say in your sex life (and your drug use).
The initiation of coercive force against individual women is criminal aggression in every case. When perpetrated against pregnant women it is more cowardly and disgusting. May the perps feel unequal yet apposite reprisal force on their own hides.
So, does qualified immunity cover the sheriff ? Does prosecutorial immunity cover the prosecutor ? I'd like to see them all sued, maybe the grand jury members too.
Does the prosecutor have to provide any exculpatory evidence to the grand jury? If not I don't see going after them. However, I think QI for the prosecutor would be a big stretch since there was plenty of time to know what the law actually says.
It was the heat of the moment. You can't second guess the split second decisions DAs are required to make in the live situation environment of their own offices.
I am curious, under what statue the hospital staff justifies disclosing confidential patient information? Couldn't that be a that HIPAA violation if there was no law requiring the disclosure? Couldn't it be a HIPAA violation if the law was misused?
oh, they wrote great big exceptions into HIPAA for law enforcement. that is a feature of relying on government to define a right.... they always give themselves an exception.
https://twitter.com/TheNewAmerica77/status/1513369039413800961?t=XAnAywYCBz1UJs9I8yyAWQ&s=19
25 million people locked in their apartments in China. Media silent. They are saying Chinese stock market took a little hit today because inflation came in hotter than expected. Incredible.
Yes, everything in this article is correct, but strangely, I don't feel the slightest bit of sympathy for the baby murderer who was temporarily robbed of her arbitrary rights to murder babies, granted by arbitrary criminal code, enacted by hypocritical, vampiric politicians who haven't the guts to enact the most obvious, straightforward, logical, scientifically indisputable, SCOTUS-proof law that has escaped enactment by every state since RoevWade: "human being" starts at conception.
Can I assume you oppose hormonal birth control agents?
""human being" starts at conception"
The first step to getting a law passed based on this idiotic belief is to convince more people. Right now around 15% of Americans believe life begins at conception. Since Roe the belief that abortion should be outlawed in some, most, and/or all cases has never been the majority American belief. Never. Not once.
Your position is unconvincing to reasonable people. Not for lack of money, time, passion or effort.
You will never convince rational people that you are right, which is why you have to use government force to suppress liberty.
The vast majority of people support legal abortions only during the first trimester.
"Liberty" includes the right to live with like-minded individuals. That's why the US was founded as a federation of states, each with their own laws, allowing California and NY to make abortion legal, and allowing Texas and Georgia to outlaw it.
"The vast majority of people support legal abortions only during the first trimester."
Not true. If you ask what people believe for themselves, it falls between the end if the first trimester and halfway, depending on the year. But if you ask what should be legal, the majority of people support the end of the second trinester. That has been the case for as long as they have been tracking it.
Unlike zealots, most Americans are uncomfortable forcing their moral beliefs on others. The third trimester is where you get large-scale opposition, with only 9% (plus or minus a point) supporting abortion throughout the third trimester.
""Liberty" includes the right to live with like-minded individuals."
That's not what liberty means. That's not even what federalism means. And legislating religious values betrays the Cinstitution. So please keep your self-importance and your self-righteousness to yourself. Most of us aren't interested or we would have chosen it for ourselves.
And most of us did not.
Yes, that is what liberty means.
Wrong. The US Constitution only prohibits the establishment of religion by the federal government. Until the 20th century, many states had established churches. And no state has a prohibition on legislating religious values; to the contrary, much of the US legal code is rooted in religious values.
What "self-righteousness"? I'm a gay atheist. I couldn't care less what slutty women do with their fetuses, as long as I don't have to pay for it.
I couldn't care less what you "choose for yourself" as long as I don't have to pay for it. But when you spew self-righteous nonsense, I will correct you.
What baby??????
Pro-Life is a delusional as the left is.
The baby growing inside an actual woman, that can respond to stimulus early on. The baby that would press her hands against the womb to match mine on my wife's stomach.
The baby that could have been somebody, if somebody else didn't want to save money for a new iPhone instead of having a kid they made.
Humorous is that like a seed is a plant theory?
"That's not a seed!! It's a plant!", you'll scream delusions endlessly.
How about I sell you an apple and hand you a seed?
Seed, Apple, Apple, Seed --- What's the difference? Right?
Delusions... Nothing but Delusions.
The Reality is "Babies" are individuals; NOT physical 'pieces/parts' of someone else's body. If you don't believe that set that "baby" free of the prison it is in.... How dare mommy lock up her "baby" in a garage barely big enough for it to fit in... What a violation!!!
The reality is that fetuses are not "part of someone else's body"; they are separate, distinct organisms that are using the mother's body to grow and shelter. This arrangement came about because the mother chose it.
Parents are legally and financially responsible for the care and welfare of their children after birth, so I don't see why you have a problem with holding parents responsible in the same way for the care and welfare of the fetus they chose to create.
#1 - Pretending fetuses are not "part of some else's body" is just a blatant bold faced lie and for those who want to pretend that ... they can enforce the reality of making a "separate" and physically "distinct" person... Humorously; Abortion is JUST THAT...
#2 - Actually No; Generally, We don't lock parents up for not caring about the welfare of their children. They become wards of the state. Although; the Nazi-Regime is taking care of that slowly by locking up mothers who won't give their children the COVID shot.
https://www.newsweek.com/sending-parents-jail-refusing-vaccinate-doesnt-work-say-experts-730439
But the science!!! /s Biological B.S. -- If you cannot make it INDIVIDUAL it is a part of some else's body (period)... Delusion is not the foundation of science.
You want to *pretend* a fetus pre Roe v Wade is some other person but at the same time have to *ignore* or actually Gun-Enforce the fact it cannot be separated (Why that's exactly what abortion is)....
You've *pretended* and *ignorantly* made excuses to force other people to REPRODUCE... It is UN-necessary and a very *personal* liberty dictation Gov-Gun enforced and thrown on someone else's !!!-personal life-!!! that you or anyone else has ZERO interest in....
And here you are pretending the CHOICE of Abortion which would actually eliminate massively 'wards of the state' and neglected children is somehow toppled on it's head...
Women have been having abortions through all of recorded history. They will continue to have abortions. Rich women will travel or have procedures with names that hide what is being done. Poor women will do what they can, and some will die.
So, I suggest that people get used to these stories. And those who are antiabortion figure out what they want to do with women who break their rules.
People have been committing murder throughout all of recorded history. It's so unfair that it's easier for rich people to get away with murder than for poor people. Let's legalize murder, for equity's sake, so we can end an even more dangerous black market in hitmen.
Through much of recorded history women were considered property and were under the control of men, husband or family. They could be raped, beaten, and even killed with little or no consequences. Today in some parts of the world that has changed for equity's sake. That makes some men unhappy and they want that control over women back. Taking away their reproductive rights is part of taking back control.
The legal right to kill your offspring, in or out of the womb, is not a reproductive right. It's a right to perform an act of violence after sexual reproduction has already taken place. Birth control is a reproductive right. Abortion is not. If you believe the pro-life movement exists because men are butthurt they can't rape or beat women with impunity, then you must not be listening to any pro-life men or women. They are motivated by a desire to rescue dependent, defenseless babies, not to enslave anybody.
People have been committing theft throughout all of recorded history. It's so unfair that it's easier for rich people to get away with theft than for poor people. Let's legalize theft, for equity's sake, so we can end an even more dangerous practice of attempting to stop theft.
I'll say the part you're not suppose to say out loud.
Regardless of the reason, men and women do not want to deal with the consequences of sex.
Responsible people correctly vilify them for putting their sexual convenience ahead of the rights of the unborn.
Abortion at will spits in the face of human life and shits on the concepts of divine image, the soul, and greater purpose in life.
Taken to its logical conclusion, we're all meaningless flesh sacks. There is no soul, there's no karma or afterlife, your actions are meaningless. You didn't kill a conscious person. You killed a clump of cells.
Applied consistently to all forms of human life, your warped, satanic logic justifies genocide and ethnic cleansing of undesirables because they're a pain in the ass for you as well. Turns out being a nuisance isn't grounds for murder.
THIS is why you piss off so many people when you abort.
The fact is that men rarely have to deal with the consequences of having sex. Many men will voluntarily address their responsibilities, but some just walk away. Abortion is also about power. Through the government men can tell women what to do with their own bodies.
The majority of people support keeping R v W and so the number of people being pissed off is shifting from those who want to control women to those that want women to be able to make their own decisions.
"The fact is that men rarely have to deal with the consequences of having sex." --- lmao... What a bold faced LIE...
Alimony, Child Support, Subsidized housing, Food Stamps, Subsidized Medical, Earned Income Credit .... Why it's no secret that women popping out babies gives them a *FREE* ride in life.
It never ceases to amaze me how those most entitled to everything are always the first to complain that they aren't entitled enough.
And yet your bias, unconvincing opinions, and anger are irrelevant. No one should care what your beliefs are about how they should live their lives. You don't like abortion? Great. Don't have one.
But trying to force your uninformed, judgemental, scientifically and morally deficient, unconvincing is wrong. It is un-American. It is anti-liberty. And it isn't something that most Americans support.
You want to be a self-righteous, self-impressed, self-aggrandizing zealot? Grt together with your totalitarian friends and circle jerk about how virtuous you are. Just leave everyone else out of it.
"your bias, unconvincing opinions, and anger"
"scientifically and morally deficient"
"self-righteous, self-impressed, self-aggrandizing zealot"
The projection is strong with this one.
He pegs it dead on.. I fail to see any projection what so-ever.
I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything except leave people alone to make their own moral choices.
You, on the other hand, are trying to use government force to make everyone folloq your smallminded, deficient beliefs.
Your beliefs get to dictate one, and only one, person's behavior.
^Well Said +100000000000
Murder babies for freedom!
Now do Colorado's abortion laws.
All Americans are subject to numerous rules and laws we consider arbitrary or unfair, and we get punished if we don't obey them. I don't see why it should be any different for abortion.
We also used to claim property control through violent displacement. Still do, in some parts.
What's your neighborhood? Let's get traditional.
Abortion prohibition will be about as effective as alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition.
And theft prohibition, and fraud prohibition, and child abuse prohibition....
Since when did the principal libertarian legal concern become the whitening of all black markets rather than the equal maximization of liberty and equal protection of individual rights?
Not everyone equates abortion to the things you compare it to.
You raised an objection concerning the utility of legal prohibition, which certainly is comparable to other prohibited activities which we all (hopefully, anyway, some anarchists notwithstanding) agree should remain illegal, even though we know total eradication is impossible. The idea is that criminalizing certain behaviors will result in less of those behaviors, which is as prima facie true for abortion as it is for anything else I mentioned. By replying that, well, it's disputed whether acts of abortion violate natural human rights, you're moving from a practical consideration back to a philosophical one.
There is only one person with rights in an abortion. And you are determined to take them away from her.
Because pro-life libertarians are really totalitarian women-haters who only pretend to care about prenatal human life, right?
Maybe you care more about my finger than I do... That's no excuse to dictate me and force me to stop using them with power tools.
If your finger is poking some kid in the eye, "My finger, my choice!" and "Don't like poking kids in the eye? Don't do it," are not exactly slam dunk arguments against third-party interference.
Just gotta love how you *PRETEND* some kid of your responsibility is involved.. Let me guess, "It's for the children of the state?", right?
My, my; those eggs grow up so fast... Next thing ya know they'll be driving cars, paving roads and and knocking themselves up all within their mothers womb.... 🙂
Delusional is the best word for it. Let's start with some basic reasonable thinking. If it was even possible to survive a "baby" at all with all the incubator technology in the world it would be past the Roe v Wade marker. That's a TEST TUBE "baby" not a real natural one.
Thus leaves a simple undeniable FACT --- Pro-Life isn't trying to "save" anyone. They're trying to FORCE reproduction.
You have full control over whether you reproduce, namely by whether you choose to have sex or not. Using abortions to make reproductive decisions is idiotic.
And the ideology of a right to pass Gov-Gun enforced law because the neighbor does something in his yard that you deem 'idiotic'.....
Lays in the land of tyranny.
My view is consistent on this: the federal government lacks the power to regulate either abortions or guns.
It is you who is arguing in favor of Roe v Wade, that is, a federal usurpation of the power of the states to regulate abortions. It is you who is trying to turn the US into a "land of tyranny".
Matthew 22:21, "give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.."
The 'unborn' is not Ceasar's territory to judge and placing [WE] tyrannical mob in "Gods" territory is stuffing Gov-Guns at the helm of religion.
"the federal government lacks the power" ???
13th Amendment;
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
If Pro-Life wants to pretend there is another life there; they thwart the ability to 'enslave' mother in involuntary servitude. If they pretend there isn't a life there they have no grounds to dictate personal body functions as that is a WILD violation of Personal Liberty.
A mother bearing a child to term against her will is not "involuntary servitude" in the legal sense.
And it isn't "involuntary servitude" even by analogy; the mother chose to have sex and the mother chose to let the fetus implant itself.
Under the US Constitution, the states most certainly have the power to "dictate personal body functions", and the federal government lacks the power to stop the states from doing so.
Under the US Constitution, the states most certainly have the power to "dictate personal body functions"
Oh; you don't like the 13th Amendment? Well how about the 9th Amendment or the 5th Amendment or how about the 4th Amendment (The one actually used in Roe v Wade)?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
The right of the people to be secure in their persons
Funny how you can write off every single one of those just because they don't fit your desire to allow States to KILL-OFF Individual Liberty.
I do. It doesn't apply. Pregnancy isn't servitude, and it is certainly not "involuntary".
Doesn't apply.
I don't see how either of those applies either.
I have no desire to "kill off individual liberty". As far as I am concerned, I couldn't care less what adult women do with their bodies, their fetuses, or their babies.
I am explaining to you that your justifications for your pro-abortion stance hold no water, and that your position is inconsistent with libertarianism.
In-as-much as you believe driving a car that may/may-not cause an accident that kills people is a voluntary act you cannot correctly pretend that all pregnancies are voluntary. (Honestly; your just flipping B.S.)
The 13th Amendment does apply if one's belief is to pretend it's a 'saving' life issue.
Also the 5th Amendment thwarts the very narrative that a person can be used to prosecute themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deciding that another life isn't the issue (dismissing the 13th Amendment) puts the 9th Amendment on the table.
There is a disparage of rights reserved by the people. I mean common; A person's right to make medical decisions isn't a persons right but a right of the State???? Gimme-a-break.
In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health,2 the Court, rather than directly addressing the issue, "assume[d]" that "a competent person [has] a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition."3 More importantly, however, a majority of the Justices separately declared that such a liberty interest exists.4
Yet, it is not clear how actively the Court would seek to protect this right from state regulation.
I find it humorous you can pretend that State's Regulating the health care choices for people is Libertarian... Or has any position at all in Personal Liberty.
These days, yes, all pregnancies are voluntary: women have the option to abstain from sex, or (in case of rape) have the option to take drugs that prevent implantation.
The 13A talks about "slavery or involuntary servitude"; pregnancy is neither.
The 5A only prohibits compelling someone to be a "witness against themselves"; so, you can't compel a woman to testify whether she terminated her pregnancy, but if you can prove that she did, you can certainly prosecute her for it.
The 9A doesn't say "all rights not enumerated here are retained by the people", it merely says that the enumeration of specific rights doesn't mean that (some) other rights don't exist.
Yes, and under Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS found that women have a right to an abortion. So, if you are saying that that is the current interpretation of the US Constitution, I agree. I'm simply pointing out that this is not the historical meaning or interpretation of the US Constitution, it is a progressive reinterpretation. And the reason we are talking about it is because SCOTUS may well reverse those rulings and return the power to regulate these issues back to the states.
I'm not "pretending" anything. The US is not, has never been, and will never be, a libertarian nation, period. The US is a failing social welfare state with massive debts and increasing political polarization, and if we don't want it to spiral out of control completely, the best thing we can do is to return more control to the states. If some states democratically choose to govern themselves as authoritarian Christian states and other states democratically choose to govern themselves as proto-fascist progressive shitholes (apparently your preference), neither of those is a win for libertarianism, but at least it's a win for political self-determination.
As for political libertarianism in the US, it's dead. If you think your left wing bullshit is going to somehow change that, you are delusional in the extreme.
"I agree. I'm simply pointing out that this is not the historical meaning or interpretation of the US Constitution, it is a progressive reinterpretation."
Humorously; It was a Republican Supreme Court that ruled on the Roe v Wade case.
I don't find the ruling "progressive" or left-wing at all...
In fact; it packs a ton of basic common-sense to it as well as leaving post-implanted pregnancy up to the States.
And I believe a persons pregnancy is a very PERSONAL matter and in the realm of 'federal' being the protector of Human Rights do share their opinion/investment in the matter at hand.
I have no idea what a "Republican Supreme Court" is or why you think I would care about the (assumed/real) political affiliations of SCOTUS justices. I'm not a Republican.
"Human Rights" and "protecting human rights" is a left wing and progressive concept. Under conservatism and libertarianism, there are no "human rights", there is simply enumerated, limited government powers. Your thinking is so suffused with left wing ideology that you don't even understand this.
And part of those, "limited government powers"
Is NOT BEING ABLE TO FORCE PEOPLE with Gov-Guns to REPRODUCE............
And be able to make their OWN personal medical decisions...
Is that really so hard to grasp?
You are free to use contraceptives or abstinance. You are free to take risks and do as you want with consenting parties.
You are NOT free to cover your mistakes up by murdering children.
Since when was murdering children EVER legal???
A fertilized egg is not a child just like my foot is not a person.
We don't live in a libertarian society. We live in a society that imposes a variety of rules in order to achieve a variety of objectives and punishes people if they don't comply. Within that framework, punishing people for not paying taxes and punishing women for having abortions is consistent.
A libertarian society would operate fundamentally differently: in a libertarian society, there wouldn't be legal punishments for women who have abortions, but there would be other consequences, such as loss of insurance coverage, ostracism, expulsion from private organizations, etc.
"Because pro-life libertarians are really totalitarian women-haters who only pretend to care about prenatal human life, right?"
Just up to "totalitarian". I don't presume to know why you want to be a totalitarian, nor do I care. I just want you to stop.
Since when do libertarians ONLY talk about the various horrible things they want government to do to people for violating religious tenets?
The original platform does no such thing, but does protect rights from coercive superstition.
Hopefully this usurpation against women will get rid of as many republicans as the felony beer and felony weed laws.
...And if Democrats weren't all about building a Nazi(National Socialist)-Regime to destroy every foundation of the USA and actually cared about the U.S. Constitution - I'd be a Democrat.
But apparently I'm not the only one who joins the massive majority of Liberty fighters that find's a Nazi-Regime ([WE] mobs rule!! Gang-land system) far more of a hostile threat to their own liberty and the USA than a couple of quirks of Power-Mad Puritan Republicans are.
And perhaps the biggest flaw is apparently Democrats only cry about weed liberty until Republicans start too; then all the sudden it's $TRILLIONS of STOLEN funding to support smoking weed. (Ya Know; The Nazi-Regime)... And it's was the Social Progressives (i.e. Democratic Party Flagship) that launched Prohibition.
So in all honesty Democrats get ZERO points for fighting for Liberty. Heck the only one they have today is Roe v Wade ironically entirely ESTABLISHED by a Republican Supreme Court.
Sad to note the official ignorance involved in the above described matter. Might it be that the “ignorance” was chosen? One wonders. That said, a big fat law suit against involved officialdom/official dumb, take your pick, might well be appropriate.
SHOULD LAW AND FACTS (NOT) MATTER?
The facts are sparse, so how does Sullum claim to know them, not to mention pronouncing judgment on the DA instantaneously and remotely? It's not even certain yet that the abortion was done on the person charged.
Here is a link to the Texas Criminal Homicide statute, if anyone cares, whose content (unlike the facts in this particular case) is readily ascertainable:
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm (Texas Penal Code, Chapter 19)
Note that the abortion exception (pasted below) does not protect third parties who provide assistance in feticide but are not licensed physicians. Feticide is not the term used in the statute, but the legal definition of "individual" includes "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." See Tex. Penal Code Section 1.07 (Definitions).
Sec. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or
(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.
Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, Sec. 2.02, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
The woman did it herself. Black letter law says she isn't guilty of murder. It's not that hard to understand that the cops and DA were wrong unless you don't want to.
Fanaticism thrives on self-deception. The Anti-Saloon League and Prohibition Party in 1929 imagined Prohibition was gaining popularity even in Germany, and that Italians were giving up wine. This was in the NY Times on New Year's Day 1930, p.3
Unborn children is like Unearned income.
Both are delusions in fantasy land created by Power-Mad criminals just begging to build-up their own pathetic ego's through the ability to stack up those Gov-Gun usage against others.....
Get your own LIFE! Stop messing with everyone else!!! Gang-Land Politics/Dictation is NOT what the USA was founded on.
Neither unborn children nor unearned income are real? While you're looking up the definition of "child," go ahead and look up the definition of "economic rent."
Oh like renting a house when nothing is there but a concrete foundation??? Ya right, You got me there lol.... What a joke of an argument. New law FORCING people to finish a house every-time concrete is poured.
As long as I pay more than half of my income in taxes because other people are exercising their political power, I will exercise my political power to tell those other people how to live and how to waste less of my money.
Stop taking my money and I'll be happy to let you live your life the way you see fit.
Entirely agree........ But two wrongs don't make a right it makes a double wrong.
There aren't "two wrongs" here, there is a specific legal and political arrangement here within a particular, non-libertarian form of government. The legal and political arrangement on abortions was that we were going to take a progressive approach and adopt policies that made abortions "safe, legal, and rare" and that arrangement has obviously failed.
You don't get to mix a progressive welfare state with bits and pieces of libertarianism as you please because you end up with a completely dysfunctional form of government and society that way.
@wphdm
Did you bother to read the article?
The PROSECUTOR has been forced to publicly acknowledge that she had not committed any crime. An action he would NEVER take if he had any other option. You comment shows some people have no interest in inconvenient facts.
Suppose that this woman had been armed. Would she have been entitled to use a weapon to resist this unfounded arrest?
Stand Your Ground!
The prosecutor and the sheriff's office had no excuse for what they did.
However, the hospital and the grand jury may have been the victims of an own-goal by the pro-choice messaging campaign. We got saturation coverage that simply said now Texas had banned abortions starting at six weeks, and women could no longer have them. The details about it being a civil lawsuit rather than something enforced by the police are well known to the kind of person who reads VC, but left out of many news stories and fundraising. One assumes in some cases that was a deliberate decision.
A similar thing happened in October 2020. We were flooded by outrage pieces saying Texas was forcing everyone with a mail-in ballot to vote at a single box in each county. It was a lie, of course: you simply mail in the ballot, that it is why they call it voting by mail. My elderly mother-in-law was taken in, she applied for a mail-in ballot but went downtown and stood in line because she'd gotten texts from out-of-state activists telling her she had to.
One wonders how many Dem mail-in voters simply gave up and threw away their ballot....due to an own-goal by voting rights activists.
Dunno about the Dems, but my Libertarian ballot for Gary Johnson was thrown back in my homeowner/taxpayer face, though I sent it in a month or so before the election.
My Libertarian ballot for Gary Johnson was thrown back in my homeowner/taxpayer face, though I sent it in a month or so before the election.
Seriously: if this was in TX 2012 or 2016 and was it properly filled out according to "their" rules, I hope you let the local LPTX and local Election Administrator know. I was a county chair in 2012 and would definitely have gone down to the election office with you to follow up.
OTOH If it was some kind of protest vote where you intentionally broke some rules, that's great and it's your right to do so, but it's also legit for them to send it back.
Texas prosecutors ignoring the law & running rough shod over someone. I'm shocked! As a lifelong Texan, I can tell you this isn't a rare thing.
What is a person? When is it a person? Everyone has at least one opinion. But that is all that it is. One person's opinion. When does life begin? This is deep God mystery, way beyond human understanding & has no place in human courts. Pregnancy is the condition of "baby on the way". Pregnancy is NOT a baby. Somewhere in the process of baby on the way, we have a baby. Lots of opinions about when that is. But the only opinion about a woman's pregnancy that should matter is hers. When the "absolute truth, beyond any doubt" crowd bullied the courts into inserting themselves into this issue it got ugly & muddy real quick. No one is making any woman who opposes abortion have one. But the State of Texas has just declared absolute authority over a woman's pregnancy & medical decisions. And forces her to take an unwanted pregnancy to term. No matter what. Women are not "murdering their babies" by the thousands. If you deeply believe otherwise, fine. But it isn't your life or your pregnancy. And we are supposed to have freedom from your religion.
National Socialist Germany did pretty much the same thing. That gubmint was eager for multiple crops of cannon fodder back in pre-nuclear days, when politicians could conscript and export youthful murderers in relative safety. And Positive Christian NSDAP policies are still popular in Texas and Germany, as is now embarrassingly on display for all the world to see. My Texan ancestors would shiver in disgust.
THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS!
Aemon's, not Hank's.
I have to admit, they're arresting women for murder for getting abortions much faster than I thought. I assumed the Handmaid's Tale wouldn't really get going until around 2026.
But it is the logic of anti-abortionists. Women have to be given life in prison for abortion, perhaps even punished for miscarriages (neglect of a child, naturally).
The land will not be cleansed until a quarter of all women are behind bars. A backdoor repeal of the 19th amendment is just bonus.
Yes, that is the logic of anti-abortionists: they consider fetuses to be legally the same as babies, and hence both deliberate killing and negligent killing should entail serious punishments.
Abortion restrictions will be imposed at the state level, so the majority of American women can still get abortions if they want to. Furthermore, once abortion is illegal, far fewer women will choose to get abortions; after all, pregnancy is a choice, not an accident.
"they consider fetuses to be legally the same as babies"
And they're wrong. And they can't convince even 20% of Americans that they are right. And they can't prove that their belief is any more than a religiously-informed opinion. And they can't accept that other people have moral agency, too.
"Abortion restrictions will be imposed at the state level"
And yet even in those states, banning abortion is opposed. But don't let that stop your totalitarian farce.
Neither are your beliefs. I mean, you are so biologically ignorant that you don't even understand the relationship between fetus and mother.
So what's the harm of letting each state decide this for themselves then?
Let's be crystal clear here: in this discussion, you are taking the totalitarian, proto-fascist, nationalist view. You want to impose national policy on everybody, you deny the right of states to self-determination, and you are tolerating the forcible expropriation of citizens to subsidize your preferred policies.
I simply take the view that individual states should have the right to self-determination, regardless of whether they choose conservative, progressive, or libertarian forms of government.
Dred Scott was the Law of the Land until the 13th Amendment ruined everything for God's Own Populists. They barely snatched conscription from the jaws of repeal in time to send kids to be blown up in trenches. That saved bank loans made to "allies" before Christian Monarchist Russia went communist and quit the war. Greg Abbott, the new Anthony Comstock, may turn out to be the best hope for getting rid of weaponized christianofascism so the LP can replace it.
Well-researched journalism by Sullum, as usual. But let's be honest. When the Supreme Court pointed to the Constitution and ruled that offering kidnappers and vigilantes cash (even in published ads) for capturing (& mebbe occasionally killing) fugitive slaves, did not many wrongful kidnappings and murders result? Republican National Socialists, like many before them, cannot abide women considered individuals, and stop at nothing to collectivize half the human race.