Reason Roundup

Ending Roe Threatens More Than Abortion Rights

Plus: Lawsuit against Twitter can move forward, antitrust bills targeting Big Tech falter, and more...

|

In discourse about Roe v. Wade being overturned and states severely restricting or limiting abortions, much of the discussion is (rightly) focused on the potential fallout for those with unwanted or unsustainable pregnancies. It's girls and women of childbearing age on whom such prohibitions would fall the hardest, or at least the most directly. But banning abortion would bring many second-order effects that merit consideration, too. Some children, families, and medical professionals may suffer grave consequences. We're also likely to see a drastically expanded state. Today I want to devote a little attention to some of these often-overlooked consequences.

Banning Abortion Would Be Bad for Kids

Opponents of abortion often say "just put the baby up for adoption!" as if carrying that baby for nine or so months beforehand isn't a major endeavor in the best of circumstances and, often, dangerous or damaging to a woman's health. But women aren't the only ones who suffer from forced pregnancies. People who don't want to be pregnant aren't always capable of or willing to provide a healthy gestational environment—and that could be terrible for the children they eventually give birth to.

Sometimes women abort because it is the more compassionate option. They know that alcoholism, addiction issues, mental health problems, or other circumstances will prevent them from adequately nourishing a fetus or protecting it from harm during gestation. While many things pregnant women are warned against (lunchmeat, caffeine, even marijuana) may do less damage than many assume, there are behaviors—like excessive alcohol consumption during pregnancy—that can have serious negative consequences for a developing fetus. A lack of prenatal care or vitamins such as folic acid could also cause major problems.

If abortion is banned, we would likely start to see a lot more children born with severe birth defects and developmental issues. Some may say, "Hey, they were born, that's all that matters." But is setting up a person for a lifetime of suffering really a moral or humane choice? Ethicists have long debated this, and there is no easy answer. (And, unfortunately, finding people to adopt special needs children can be challenging.)

Forcing women to give birth could also be detrimental to the existing children of those women. A lot of women who get abortions are already mothers. They may choose abortion because they don't have the resources—financial, emotional, or otherwise—to care for yet another child. Forcing them to do so could negatively impact the children and families they already have.

Banning Abortion Would Be Bad for All Pregnant Women and Their Doctors

Abortion being banned (or severely limited) would create many new opportunities for growing the state and invading people's privacy. This would fall not just on women who want abortions, but on all pregnant women and their health care providers.

An abortion ban could incentivize closer monitoring and regulation of all gynecologists, obstetricians, and women's health clinics. And doctors who treat women who miscarry may find themselves under increasingly burdensome regulatory requirements and even subject to investigations

Meanwhile, women who experience a miscarriage—a medical term for which is spontaneous abortion—could find themselves facing heightened hostility and suspicion at a time when they most need compassion and sympathy.

Even with abortion legal, we've seen some states investigating, prosecuting, and imprisoning women they blame for their miscarriages. (In Texas, a woman was recently jailed for two nights following a miscarriage after reportedly confiding in hospital staff that she had tried in some way to induce the miscarriage.) This may only get worse if abortion is banned and state authorities are on the lookout for people who secretly self-induce abortion and claim it was a spontaneous miscarriage.

Louisiana is already advancing legislation that would classify abortion as homicide. If passed, would the bodies of women who miscarry with no discernible cause be treated like a crime scene?

Pregnant women across the board could find themselves under increasing scrutiny and restrictions when abortion is banned.

If the state defines a zygote/fetus as a full person from conception, it follows that anything risky a pregnant woman does may be considered child endangerment and, if those risky activities lead to miscarriage, perhaps manslaughter. We could see new restrictions on what pregnant women in general are permitted to do. And we may see more criminal prosecutions of people who do things that could endanger a fetus, even if no actual harm is done or even if they don't know they're pregnant.

This is already the case in Alabama, where pregnant women are regularly prosecuted for "chemical endangerment of a child" for taking illegal drugs during pregnancy. This occurs even in cases where the drug is only marijuana (which an increasing number of women may be using) and/or there's no discernible harm done to the fetus.

And with abortion still legal in some states, and abortion-inducing drugs able to clandestinely induce abortions at home, states with bans could lead to increasingly invasive measures to ensure pregnant women aren't obtaining abortions.

Banning Abortion Would Grow the Government 

Abortion being banned could also affect society more broadly. We've already discussed some ways it could lead to a more invasive criminal justice system and less medical privacy. We could also face heightened surveillance and enhanced government power in a number of other ways.

It's unlikely that conservative lawmakers and activists would be content simply to ban abortion pills and procedures within their own state borders. If a national ban isn't possible (and it isn't, at least at the moment), they could increasingly set about trying to prevent women from leaving the state for abortions or obtaining and using drugs that would induce an abortion privately.

The abortion-inducing drugs mifepristone and misoprostol now account for more than half of all U.S. abortions, and they are available to be prescribed via telemedicine and sent in the mail. There are also websites abroad on which they can be purchased without a prescription, and if abortion is banned, other black-market avenues for these drugs could spring up. This means we could face a new war on abortion-inducing drugs (in addition to severe charges for women who take these drugs without a prescription).

This could take many forms, including increasing inspections or regulations for pharmaceutical companies, telemedicine services, and the mail. We could see raids on places thought to be harboring or distributing abortion-inducing drugs. We could see civil lawsuits brought by state attorneys general against anyone making or prescribing these pills. We could see attempts to make these drugs harder to get at the national level, using that all-purpose Commerce Clause, and attempts to go after anyone who brings or sends them across state lines. We could see attempts to prosecute people who provide instructions on making abortion pills. One thing is for sure: As with the drug war more generally, a war on abortion pills would have repercussions far beyond the realm of abortion.

We're also starting to see states ban or attempt to ban "aiding and abetting" an abortion, which could mean police investigating and the state prosecuting people who help women obtain an abortion in any way (including by traveling to another state to obtain one legally). The Texas law to this effect only applies to aiding and abetting illegal abortions within Texas, but a Missouri lawmaker recently introduced a measure to ban aiding or abetting abortions forbidden in Missouri even if these procedures are performed out of state.

Banning Abortion Would Encourage Censorship 

Attempts to stop people from helping women get abortion pills or travel out of state for abortions could also lead to more surveillance of private communications, more surveillance of online forums, and more attempts to regulate or censor speech. We could see a plethora of lawsuits concerning advertisements for abortion funds (which, among other things, help women travel to obtain abortions), internet forums that allow them to promote their services, or information on how to self-induce an abortion.

The First Amendment and Section 230 of federal communications law should prevent websites from being liable for users posting information about how to obtain an abortion in violation of a state's law or how to travel out of state for an abortion. But these things also shield websites from being punished for sex worker advertisements, for instance, and we've still seen countless attempts to punish them for that. So it seems pretty clear we could see attempts to shut down or sanction forums for abortion advertising and information, as well as more impetus at the national level to abolish or amend Section 230.

Banning Abortion Would Mean Less Freedom in Other Realms, Too 

Not long after Texas passed a law allowing private citizens to sue for damages over suspected abortions, California Democrats started tossing around the prospect of doing the same for guns. It's a good reminder that any legal formulations used to justify or enforce abortion bans could be used to justify or enforce other bans or regulations, too. Guns seem to be an especially ripe area for this transference, as do areas concerning health freedom.

Overturning Roe Would Mean New Avenues for Political Fighting

There's some hope that if Roe v. Wade is overturned and the legality of abortion is left up to individual states, we could see a kinder, gentler national politics. There might be less contentious battles over Supreme Court justices and less pressure to elect a president based on his or her potential to appoint pro-life or pro-choice justices. But the Supreme Court (and other federal courts) are still going to have a huge role in determining the parameters of state rules around abortion. At the same time, the fight to control Congress and build a stronger and stronger majority therein may also grow more intense since, without Roe, Congress could theoretically pass a law legalizing or banning abortion across the land. The idea that anything about U.S. politics would get less volatile, extreme, or partisan in the wake of Roe being overturned seems like wishful thinking.


FREE MINDS

Lawsuit against Twitter can proceed. A federal judge has dismissed free speech claims against Twitter brought by writer Alex Berenson, who alleged in a lawsuit that Twitter had violated his First Amendment rights by kicking him off the platform over his comments about COVID-19 vaccines. U.S. District Judge William Alsup noted that Berenson's claim to that effect is barred by Section 230 of federal communications law. (Also, Twitter isn't the government, so it can't violate anyone's First Amendment rights.) But Twitter may have violated its contract with users, said Alsup, and thus Berenson's lawsuit may continue. "Alsup focused his ruling on Berenson's allegations that the company changed the ground rules on the content Twitter would allow on its platform, despite assurances from an executive that his posts weren't up for censorship," reports Politico.


FREE MARKETS

Antitrust reform efforts faltering? In 2021 and early 2022, antitrust law captivated Congress, with members from the left and right pushing for a variety of (largely ridiculous) reforms. Some of these were more general, but the bulk were aimed squarely at Big Tech companies. But despite the high profile push from some of Congress' biggest names, these bills have failed to really go anywhere yet, thank goodness. Now, time may be running out, suggest Axios tech reporters Margaret Harding McGill and Ashley Gold:

The next couple of months will be do-or-die for backers of the tech antitrust bills. If lawmakers don't approve them ahead of Congress' August recess, insiders say the outlook is bleak as midterm elections loom.

  • High-profile issues like abortion rights, inflation and the war in Ukraine are filling up lawmakers' time.

What they're saying: "There's a natural timeline. Once the summer break happens, it's going to be harder to get people focused on big issues," Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who has led the House's tech antitrust efforts, told Axios.

McGill and Gold note that two bills—the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the Open App Markets Act—"received bipartisan support when they were approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, setting them up for possible floor votes." Yet neither bill has advanced since early February.


QUICK HITS

• Canadian Parliament member Arnold Viersen has reintroduced a measure that would require porn producers and distributors (i.e., any website where adult content appears online, including social media platforms like Twitter) "to verify the age and consent of each person depicted," as Viersen described it.

• Was censorship the greatest COVID-related threat to freedom? Leaders in both authoritarian and democratic countries "were frequently tempted to address 'fake news' about the pandemic through state pressure, if not outright coercion," notes Jacob Sullum in a review of The Infodemic: How Censorship and Lies Made the World Sicker and Less Free.

• Body cam footage worn by a Warren County, Virginia, cop "appears to show that sheriff's deputies lied about the circumstances of a traffic stop in which a 77-year-old man suffered a brain injury and later died," reports Raw Story. "The county Sheriff's Office originally said that Ralph Ennis fell over the trailer hitch of his red pickup truck and struck his head on the camper top attached to his truck." But the footage shows "deputies rushed the man in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven near Front Royal, VA, and then slammed him face-forward into the back of his truck and tackled him to the ground."

• The Oklahoma Board of Elections says state Rep. Sean Roberts—now running for Oklahoma labor commissioner—can't appear on the ballot as "The Patriot."

• "A new Florida law would erode students' fundamental right to learn history accurately," suggest American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida Political Director Kirk Bailey and Communications Strategist Zuri Davis (formerly of Reason).

• Sigh:

NEXT: Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness Isn't Strange or Mad Enough

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. CDC bought cellphone data to track vaccination, lockdown compliance: report
    https://nypost.com/2022/05/04/cdc-bought-cell-phone-data-to-track-lockdowns-vaccination-docs/

    1. But, abortion, though.

      1. "All freedoms are free, but some freedoms are freer than others." - ENB Farm

        1. You're not really free unless you're free to sell sex and have abortions.

          1. Your freedoms end at my nose!. Therefore, your freedom doesn't logically extend to aborting that developing human in your uterus. The question of when the aggregation of cells in a female human uterus can be destroyed is a question to be determined by the legislative process in the states & DC.

            1. Your rights to tell a girl or a woman what to do with her body end where the rights of a girl or a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy begins.

          2. You're not really free unless the voters use Government Almighty gone metastasized, telling you what to do with your womb, and commandeering the very nutrients in your blood!

            1. It's not your womb anymore if you chose to put someone in it. I theirs and they have a 9 month rental agreement. You don't get to kill them because you want to renege.

              Next time you want to treat reproduction as recreation take the pill and use a fucking condom.

              1. All because Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer says so! 'Cause SHE Knows All! What is a soul, what is consciousness, and how UTTERLY much fertilized egg cells can SUFFER!

                Next, Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer will tell us that your teeth bacteria suffer, too! NO MORE brushing your teeth, ye mass murderers, you! 'Cause Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer says so!

      2. You know, my fellow CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS (yes, we have successfully hijacked the label of "libertarianism" and this discussion forum), I hear the "LIBTARDS" (one of "our" favorite terms) saying "be careful what you wish for," but I say that overturning Roe versus Wade would be a Y-U-G-E-L-Y beautiful thing. Because while it is true that such an action would increase the number of the dreaded aforementioned "LIBTARDS," Jews, Asians, Hispanics, Latinos, Arabs, Muslims, gays, lesbians and blacks (among other undesirables) in the United States, it would also increase the number of "our" great people. And, lest it is forgotten, you have the great me (or is it "I" in this case?) to thank, because I appointed three Y-U-G-E-L-Y fantastic Supreme Court justices who realize that embryos, fetuses and zygotes are all equal to full-fledged human beings outside of the womb, and thus, deserving of identical rights. Your welcome, my cultists and worshipers! Additionally, when I am your great president again in 2025, I'll just order the military to shoot and/or blow up with missiles everyone not of "our kind," if you know what I mean. LAUGHING MY Y-U-G-E ORANGE-DYED ASS OFF! Problem solved. Yes, I am truly a very stable, and very good-looking, genius! Oh, and speaking of geniuses, my best butt buddy Vlad is obviously one, too; although not quite as IQ as I am. No one will ever reach my level of brilliance. Finally, remember to always vote Republican, and then for me again! MAGA, AND QANON LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        1. Too bad we'll have to wait till 2025! Meanwhile, back at the raunch-ranch...

          STOP THE PRESSES!!! INSERT HOTTEST NEWS FLASH!!! BREAKING NEWS!!!
          Trump finally (Sort of) concedes!

          My most-senior inside contact at the Shadow White House has surreptitiously slipped me an advance copy of the ex-lame-duck POTUS’s concession speech. Without further ado, here it is:

          Friends, non-foreigner-type True Americans, and all who Make America Great Again, lend me your ears! I come to bury Biden, not to praise him. Biden and his minions stole the elections, and we must dishonor that! To Make America Great Again, we must invent the most fantastic, fabulous, YUUUGEST BIGNESS EVAH SEEN, in the ways of truly factually fictitious, but Spiritually and Metaphorically True, NEW Republican ballots! Because I have directed My Generals and My Scientists to research the current and past performance, efficacy, and patriotism of one-party states, versus multi-party states. As I have directed them to, My impartial, unbiased, data-driven council of My Generals and My Scientists have determined that yea verily, one-party states work better! Therefore, we must all strive for the Glorious Day, when America becomes a one-party state, under the One True Party, the Republican Party!

          But for now, the courts have sided with Biden and his camel-toe, and Antifa, BLM, and all the Marxist terrorists. We must let the courts have it their way, with mayo on the side. I mean, with Mao Tse Tung on the side, but without the Proud Boys standing back and standing by. Thank you, Proud Boys, for having stood by me. Also, thank you, Steve Bannon, Vladimir Putin, Kim Ill Dung, and Pepe the Stolen-Intellectual-Property Frog. Pepe, watch out for Miss Piggy, she and her “pre-nuptial contracts” will clean your clock, just like Melania is set to clean mine soon! But I digest.

          So we can’t disrepute what the nasty courts have said, or there might be civil war. Sad! The courts aren’t very American these days! And if you don’t like what I just said? Well, I’m sorry that you feel that way!

          So congratulations to Biden for having stolen the elections! This is America, so we must properly honor the decisions of the courts, in a dishonorable way! Biden can come and live with us in the White House, per the wishes of the courts. He can pour our covfefe for us, for Steve Bannon, Pepe the Frog, and I, and Jill can make sandwiches for us. We promise to call him POTUS, and her, First Lady! POTUS of covfefe, and First Lady of sandwiches, that is! Hey Biden! Get yer butt over here! Pepe needs some covfefe!

          That setup will get us by for a little while! Meanwhile, we can schedule the NEW run-off elections, this time without any fraudulent so-called “Democratic” votes being allowed, and we can do this RIGHT the next time!

          Meanwhile, congratulations to Joe Stalin-Biden, on being elected POTUS of pouring covfefe for Pepe!

      3. Hmmm...I just wonder what implications overturning Roe v. Wade and Louisiana and other States criminalizing abortion will have for publishing?

        Will these passages from The Holy Bible (KJV,) Al-Qu'ran, and The Book of Mormon be banned?

        The Skeptic's Annotated Bible/Qu'ran/Book of Mormon--What The Bible Says About Abortion
        https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

        1. Or this:
          What The Qu'ran Say About Parenting
          https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/parenting.html

          What The Book of Mormon Says About Family Values
          https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/fv/long.html

    2. But somehow can't keep track of illegal immigrants when they are being given government cell phones, FFS. I bet some intrepid reporter who tracked down which government contract was supplying all these phones, and had 10K to bribe some poor stooge at the cellphone company, could come up with a pulitzer worthy story without hardly trying.

      1. The pulitzer committee will never award a story that makes dems look bad

        1. I know this, which is why I fudged out with "pulitzer worthy". But surely Joe Rogan (or someone similar) would have the chops to do this, just for the generated outrage income, right?

          1. Contrary to the labels placed on Rogan, that’s not really his schtick.

            1. It would be a great beat for Glenn Greenwald. He has the balls and the chops to do it, and also a whole bunch of don't-give-a-fuck.

          2. Crowder went to registered voter addresses that turned out to be empty logs and was promptly banned from the internet.

      2. If they did techno fog and revolver news would be first up

      3. The immigrants were smart enough to get into the country. They are smart enough to avoid being tracked through the cell phones; they will sell them.

        1. True. But you could still make a hell of a map, of them spreading through the country, for the purposes of a news story. And I bet for that many phones, you could find a couple who would cheerfully spill the beans to a reporter for a hundred bucks.

    3. Lets face it ENB, you're about special rights, not equal rights. Your spurious arguments come from a mind obviously preset by an emotionally (de)based agenda. Please recuse yourself from "Reason."

  2. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/white-house-defends-peaceful-protests-at-supreme-court-and-justices-homes

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters Thursday that the administration understands the "passion" behind the protests carried out by pro-abortion rights activists fearing the reversal of Roe v. Wade after a leaked draft opinion, but she urged participants to keep it "peaceful."

    Psaki fielded a number of questions about the topic during Thursday's press briefing, where she also announced she'd be leaving her post on May 13.

    "Peaceful protest is not extreme," she told Fox News's Peter Doocy. "I think our view here is that peaceful protest, there's a long history in the United States, in the country, of that, and we certainly encourage people to keep it peaceful and not resort to any level of violence."

    Doocy repeatedly pressed Psaki on whether protesters should keep their demonstrations limited to the grounds around the Supreme Court and not "to go into residential neighborhoods in Virginia and Maryland" as some organizers have publicly stated.

    He claimed that activists had published a map of the Washington metropolitan area "with the home addresses of the Supreme Court Justices" and asked if that is "the kind of thing this president wants to help your side make their point."

    1. So, the administration supports going to the private residences of judges to "protest," while a case is still in the court and hasn't been decided yet?

      1. https://twitter.com/JCNSeverino/status/1522344086497370112

        Doocy: "These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices. Is that the sort of thing this President wants?"

        Psaki: "I think the President's view is that there is a lot of passion."

        Disgusting that the White House is refusing to condemn this.

        1. It is despotic anarchy, is what it is.

          1. At least without much pretense.

          2. Anarchotyranny

        2. If the prez said go home with peace and love you know that would be a dog whistle for insurection

          1. I've been assured by certain Reason writers that saying words like, "fight like hell," can reasonably be foreseen to lead to violence.

            I'm sure they will hold Kamala Harris fully accountable for her role in any violence.

            1. Of course they will. Our Reasonistas are known for their judicious consistency when it comes to treating Democrats like they did Republicans.

              I'm sure Sullum will write one hundred and thirty-six articles on it in the next three months.

            2. Kamala...accountable?! First let me remind you, she's a woman...

        3. Heh. I can't wait until Peppermint Patty makes her way to MSCNN news. That tilted head crap won't give her any credibility in the real world. I bet she bails out of network news faster than CNN+.

          1. She's going to MSNBC because you don't need credibility there.

            1. Sad but true.

            2. Exactly, "Cronut." Conservative Republicans like you and I realize that MSNBC is FAKE NEWS, whereas the great Fox News is a REAL NEWS network that never lies and always tells the truth. In fact, I watch it all day long while sitting on my tiny brain. I particularly love Tucker; he, like myself, realizes that Russia is a great country and that my buddy Vlad is a GENIUS. By the way, I also love your name, as it reminds me of one of my favorite foods.

          2. The person replacing her came from msnbc. She is going to msnbc. The cycle completes.

            1. Yeah, but you saw Rachel Maddow is down to one day a week. I don't think Psaki or MSNBC realizes her only selling point is that she is currently the liar-in-chief for the Biden administration, and without that, she's less useful than a Cuomo right now.

              [face it, she's Mike McLintock from Veep, but without even the ability to make corny jokes.]

              1. She probably wouldn't do bad on OnlyFans if she never talked.

        4. How the fuck is "having a lot of passion" a "view," exactly? Fucking Strawberry Shittake whore.

          Just noting that Psaki flat-out endorsed judicial intimidation when it's in service for her side.

          1. Professional cunt. I suspect ENB is a fan.

            1. Wouldn’t be surprised if she’s more than a fan *wink wink

            2. I love grabbing females by the cunt; and my mother was a cunt, you know. I can't get her dumb voice out of my orange-dyed head!

          2. Hey, "Red Rocks White Privilege," I'm just sitting here at my Mar-a-Lago Club reading my favorite conservative Republican discussion forum--Reason Magazine--while drinking one of the twenty or so cans of diet Coke that I consume daily, and I noticed your Y-U-G-E-L-Y beautiful comment about that Psaki broad. I love how you refer to her as a "whore!" Not only is it very funny, but at the same time, it's very profound and thought-provoking. I bet that you have many college degrees. Speaking of which, so do I, and I love calling females "whores," too. Why, my wife is one! Anyhow, thank you for your undying support!

        5. Who do you think have them their brown shirts?

    2. So, if the passionate protesters storm the Supreme Court during some official activity, that will totally not be insurrection.

      1. it wasn't when they stormed the kavanough hearings but heck its all depends on which side they are on and not their actions

        1. Or stormed the wisconson state Capitol a few years back for the right to work law passage.

          1. Or attacked a federal courthouse in Portland.

            1. Or rioted for three days and torched cars and buildings in Washington and several other cities at Trump's inauguration.

              1. Or attacked the White House and burned an historic church in the process.

                1. They’re already defacing churches.

                2. Or declared part of Seattle to no longer be part of the US.

                  1. Or played in Don Lemon's feces.

      2. Totally. Also, I'm sure this tacit approval of intimidating judges totally won't have any kind of adverse consequences for the justice system as a whole. Nobody will use this tactic on judges in lower courts, or jurors or anything.

        Also, pretty sure it's a crime to intimidate officers of the court. Anyone who shows up at a justice's home should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

        1. You have got to be kidding m... Oh, wait. I missed the [/sarc] tag.

          1. Get woke! The official extent of any law is determined by intersectionality and equity. Just like with racism, impartiality is unfair, and we can only attain legal justice though selective application.

        2. Nobody will use this tactic on judges in lower courts, or jurors or anything.

          Let's not forget it wasn't that long ago that a reporter for MSNBC got busted tailing the juror bus in the Rittenhouse trial, so that he could find out where they were staying. He only got caught because the dumbass ran a stop sign trying to keep up with it, in front of a cop.

          MSNBC got banned for that little stunt, but in a society with balls, that fucker would have had the book thrown at him for jury tampering.

          1. As long as this behavior continues to occur without consequences, it will only get worse.

            1. Feature, not bug. Destroy a justice system that, while flawed, is based on the rule of law and replace it with a system that is based on arbitrary principles of "equity."

            2. Well, sure. A couple years ago, a bunch of left-wing activists did a protest in front of the home of the guy who ran the GEO immigration detention center in Aurora, Colorado, honking, yelling, and generally making a nuisance of themselves.

              When they tried that stunt again a few months later, the neighborhood residents turned out in force and started banging on the protesters' vehicles, throw rocks at them, and even reached in to punch and grab at the passengers in the cars. The activists haven't done a protest there since.

              1. But in other places, people protested at the homes of COVID health officials, and the pro-lockdown people rose up in arms. (Not actual arms, since guns are bad, but lots of strident finger pointing.)

                1. I've never been in favor of protests in front of people's homes. That's a place where you have the right to feel safe, and I'm fully in support of neighborhood residents kicking the shit out of anyone coming in to pull something like that.

                  If they want to protest, fine, but do it at the facility or in the public square, not neighborhoods of private residents. If someone

                  1. If someone ends up with a broken skull because they made a nuisance of themselves in someone's neighborhood, that's their own fault for being stupid.

                    1. I think it falls in the stupid game, stupid prizes category. If they get Rittenhouse'd, no sweat off my nuts.

                  2. I'm all for people protesting in public places, but going to someone's home is something different. It's not protest, it's rank intimidation. It's telling someone, "We'll stop at nothing and we'll find you anywhere."

  3. "NEW: Mark Esper recounts Trump asking the stunned SecDef if the government could fire missiles into Mexico and then pretend it wasn’t the US who did it in his new memoir."

    And then it didn't happen. Unlike providing intelligence to Ukranian forces to kill Russian Generals and sink Russian ships.

    1. Trump is an idiot. Everyone knows Mexico isn't an Arab country.

      1. *Arid*

        1. They don't sell that armpit crap there, huh?

    2. That and white sands military base has accidentally launched misseles into Mexico in the past

      1. Missile trivia: in the 1960s and 70s the Army launched missiles from Green River, UT (now mostly a truck stop on I-70) to White Sands in NM. At least one fell short and landed in Colorado. Another went long and landed in Northern Mexico. No true warhead, but it carried radioactive material as part of the detection technology testing. That oops created an interesting incident (and clean-up).

    3. asking if something is possible is now the same as ordering it instead of just looking at alternatives.

      1. Saying off the wall shit that doesn't actually happen is WAY worse than the entire DoD lying to the President about troop deployments.

        1. You forgot about the bit where the general was promising to give advance notice to the chicomms about any US military plans. This is so much worse than that.

          1. That would be Milley, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff. And a douchecanoe of the highest order.

          2. It's also so much worse than the Speaker of the House trying to subvert the nuclear chain of command.

    4. "Geez, look at all these drug labs right across the border. Are you sure we can't just fire missiles at them or something?"

      *Mark Esper gets the vapors*

  4. People who don't want to be pregnant aren't always capable of or willing to provide a healthy gestational environment—and that could be terrible for the children they eventually give birth to.

    First, what is a "healthy gestational environment"? Second, even if that can be defined in an objective way, why is it that a child who doesn't get that better off dead or not even existing? That to me is really saying that poor people or people with hard lives are better off dead. If we are going to kill babies because they won't be born to a life that meets some arbitrary standard, I don't see why it isn't okay to kill anyone whose life doesn't meet such a standard or at the very least consider such people to be to some degree less than human and less deserving of life and human rights.

    1. World Economic Forum believes people are “useless eaters,” and views their “brains and bodies” as product that can be hacked, controlled and discarded
      https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-05-02-world-economic-forum-believes-people-useless-eaters.html

      1. If there is one slippery slope that people are guaranteed to fall down, it is the one that leads from "some people are less worthy than others" to "the unworthy need to be murdered".

        1. Murdered? Nah, just engineer famine by starting WWIII in the region that produces a huge chunk of the worlds wheat and fertilizer.

          1. Releasing a bioweapon from a Chinese lab didn't work, so they're trying the old-fashioned way now.

          2. Interesting that the world's largest amount of ethnic Ukrainians outside the Ukraine is in Canada's prairie provinces. Particularly Saskatchewan. And Saskatchewan's biggest exports are also wheat and fertilizer.

            1. I would have guessed the Chicago suburbs.

          3. Holodomor 2: WEF Bugalloo.

        2. The war action and nuclear talk ramps up just as the Covid failed to kill as may as hoped.
          Coincidence?

      2. World Economic Forum believes people are “useless eaters,” and views their “brains and bodies” as product that can be hacked, controlled and discarded

        They do realize that the machines in The Matrix were supposed to be the bad guys, right?

        1. No, they don’t.

    2. Poor people better off dead (or sterilized)? Margaret Sanger approves.

    3. ENB, like most leftists, is better off dead.

      1. Nadless Nardless the Nasty NAZI, death-mongering luster after suicides for ALL who oppose Nadless Nardless the Nasty NAZI, will now LEAD the righteous cause against witches, vampires, Lizard People, and abortionists! ALL HAIL and BOW LOW, peons, before your NEW Overlard!

        1. Fuck off, troll.

          1. Stop being EVIL, bitch! "Right to life", my ass, necrophiliac bitch!

            Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death, will now SPEAK! HARKKK silently and RESPECTFULLY, all ye lowly heathens, as She Directs Death, and announces WHICH few of us MIGHT deserve to live, and WHO all deserves to DIE-DIE-DIE!!!

            https://reason.com/2022/01/25/did-these-three-officers-willfully-deprive-george-floyd-of-his-constitutional-rights/?comments=true#comment-9323626
            “You should really join ᛋᛋqrlsy, ᛋᛋhrike. You two goosestepping fascists offing yourselves would definitely be a mitzvah.”

            -Quote MammaryBahnFuhrer the "Expert Christian Theologian"

            So Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death... WHEN are You going to STOP stealing the IDs of Your victims, and then posting kiddie porn in THEIR names, and then blaming THEM?

            1. Fuck off, troll.

    4. Yeah, this feels like it has no limiting principle. Though this is sort of consistent with the overall vibe of Reason, which tends towards a hedonism of a type.

    5. Why not? It isn't like they have "natural rights" according to the newest Justice.

      1. Lying Lothario (who lied to the babe to get her knocked up, and now she finds out that Lying Lothario has 7 other "Love ya babe, my One and Only" babes) has "natural rights" that supersede that of the lied-to babe?!? What, Creech, you building up a harem here? Spread those genes far and wide, like the biggest, baddest elephant seal? The harem-builders who fight like weasels in heat, for mating rights, and don't give a shit if some already-born baby seals get trampled underfoot (under-fin) in the mating fights?

        MY self-righteousness DEMANDS that I take AWAY the "veto power" of the lied-to babes! Let's EVOLVE towards becoming like elephant seals! (Are we not men? We are devolving!)

        1. Sorry, the correct answer is We are Devo!

          1. I stand corrected! But note that some of us are more Devo than others!

            1. Fuck off, troll.

    6. Note that the abortion maximalists here are studiously avoiding the very salient question as to when a fetus becomes a "living" being deserving of legal protections. This is actually quite important because there are laws that punish people for killing a pregnant woman and unlawfully terminating a pregnancy. And the fact that the majority of people actually support having at least SOME restrictions on abortion is never broached by these people, either, but it needs to be addressed because there has to be a real, hard conversation on when exactly a pregnancy becomes a "baby" and the NAP comes in to play. Let's not forget that, even in a post-Roe world, there are still women who will take their pregnancy to term and then throw their newborn infants in a dumpster, rather than even dropping it off at a church or a police station so it has at least some chance to be adopted and have a decent life.

      No matter the rhetoric, the vast majority of abortions aren't for health reasons, they're for convenience, and the maximalists have admitted as such by dropping the "rare" qualifier from their "safe and legal" mantra. Which is fine, but most people aren't going to be supportive of the idea that a woman should be able to change her mind even while in labor and tell the doctor to abort the kid, just because she's single or doesn't want to change diapers for the next 2-3 years.

      At what point did ENB, for instance, begin referring to her own child as a "baby" rather than a "zygote/fetus," for example? Did she avoid calling it the former all the way up until it was born? Or did that happen earlier in the pregnancy? As I've pointed out before, the only difference between a fetus and a baby seems to be that the former is unwanted and the latter is not. So if that's the distinction, let's figure out where that line is and set the demarcation point there, with exceptions for things like rape/incest and danger to the health of the mother, which are actually quite rare and that most people would support. Make the morning-after pill fully over-the-counter rather than going through a pharmacist, so when these idiots have an "oopsie," they can mitigate the situation via their own medicine cabinet without even worrying about whether to get an abortion or not.

      1. What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell? Ditto the punishments for likewise killing a fertilized egg of an ape... A monkey... A rat... An insect... If your Righteous Punishments from on High are DIFFERENT in these cases, then WHY? WHERE do the differences come from? And what gives YOU (or the 51% of the voters) the right to punish the rest of us?

        Never, ever, have I gotten an answer, when I pose these questions, about what the PUNISHMENTS should be!

        So when advanced space aliens come here, you're ready to blast them to smithereens, obliterate them at will... 'Cause they have no human DNA? Are not now, will never be, human? Or at the very least, you're not willing to punish any alien-murderers?

        Murdering a space alien should be placed in the law books as a crime, pro-actively. And also to make a point to the troglodytes, about this "sacred human DNA" crap! WHERE does the sacredness come from, for cryin' out loud to Government Almighty?

        1. That's because your questions are the effluence of a addled shit-muncher, not a serious person, shit-muncher.

          1. So, asses ass usual, the authoritarian and totalitarian assholes have NO answers! What an UTTER surprise!

            1. The answer is, "retroactively abort shit-munchers."

              1. Asking questions that assholes are unwilling to answer, or incapable of answering, should be a capital crime! Gotcha!

                1. Such as, at what point does a "clump of cells" become a baby, shit-muncher?

                  1. Here’s my question: what must one go through to overcome their innate gag reflex to be able to actually eat shit?

                    I bet squirrel won’t answer that question either.

                  2. Radical suggestion: Allow potential mom-to-be to decide for herself!

                    (At what point in the cutting-down and building-up process, does a forest become a street? When eating, at what point does the food on your plate become dirt on your dirty plate? Maybe we could empower Government Almighty to FORCIBLY solve these problems for all, one and the same, all alike for everyone!)

                    1. The shit-muncher is still unsure of whether a 37-week baby feels pain.

                    2. Idiot suggestion: Allow potential mom-to-be to decide for herself.
                      How about the kid's choice. And people decide to kill their kids post-partum all the time, you fucking ghoul.

                    3. How about the kid's choice. And people decide to kill their kids post-partum all the time, you fucking ghoul.

                      This is why the abortion maximalists don't want to make that distinction--because they might have to actually assess something based on the Science! they so claim to love, and admit that most people do, in fact, want at least some restrictions on the practice.

                    4. Authoritarians and totalitarians: "No, lowly peons, we will NOT answer questions about what your punishments will be! Put us in TOTAL Power!!! POWER!!! POWER over your minds, your bodies, your every thought... And THEN your punishments will be revealed!!! BWAAAHHH-HA-HA!!!!"

                    5. Cope, seethe, and munch shit, HihnSQRLSo.

        2. "What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell?"

          You first, sophist.

          What do you think the punishment should be for killing a 3 month old human? An Ape? A Kitten? What gives you the right?

          1. "What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell?" A fine of $1.53! Now our self-righteousness has been given voice! (But only to the extent that it deserves to be heard.)

            3 month old human? An Ape? A Kitten? ... In all cases, allow a fully informed jury, in conjunction with the laws, decide. I have no details... So I can not decide.

            I ***DO*** know that "punishment boners" are VERY ugly! Decent people try NOT to get such boners, and of the get them anyway, they HIDE them from decent company!

            Punish-punish-punish! Personally, I think that punishment should be strictly reserved for only those who cannot otherwise be corrected, and then, “the punishment should fit the crime”. What is needed, and then no more, as far as the severity of the punishment goes. Even criticism is punishment, and it, too, should be carefully rationed.

            What have very varied thinkers through the years said about this?
            "Beware of all those in whom the urge to punish is strong." - Friedrich Nietzsche
            “Mistrust all those in whom the desire to punish is imperative.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
            "Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone." - Jesus
            “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” - Jesus

            1. Stomping your feet, calling names, and misusing scripture isn't answering his question.

      2. "Baby" vs "fetus" reminds me of "contributing immigrant" vs "illegal alien".

        1. I can see that! Invited (with "papers please") immigrants are WANTED (by Government Almighty the paper-pusher at least), while illegal sub-humans are unwanted (by Government Almighty at least), and so, Government Almighty EVICTS the unwanted "invaders", just as an abortion-desiring woman does! All of the illegal-sub-humans-hating people should, then, in the name of consistency, be pro-abortion-rights!

          1. Did that even make sense to you?

            1. Try growing a functional brain, sometime, and plain English and simple thoughts might become comprehensible to You, Oh Perfect One!

              1. It wasn't plain English, it was ranty gibberish, but I will agree that your thoughts are very, very simple.

      3. As a pro life pragmatist, I'd even support my tax dollars being spent to help make sure these people get the abortion before 8 or so weeks. Or better yet, for free birth control.
        there aren't many things I'd voluntarily pay taxes for, but abortion needs to end.

        1. That is my issue with this issue, I am forced by Obama care to subsidize every form of birth control for them why can’t they keep from having unwanted pregnancies? Maybe the court had it right in Buck v Bell just the wrong context…maybe on the third abortion they should just be sterilized.

      4. I keep seeing the modifier "or incest"...wouldn't Incest be rape as well? If it is incest with the consent of the woman I doubt she would want to abort the baby so why not just drop that part and stick with rape.

      5. "So if that's the distinction, let's figure out where that line is and set the demarcation point there...
        While "Roe" and "Casey" are in effect, it takes getting any kind of change, like setting that demarcation point, through the Byzantine process of gaining certiorari from SCOTUS.
        Getting the SCOTUS out of the picture allows changes, like that, to happen in less than a glacial time period.
        "Casey" was a change to "Roe", it took almost 20 years.

      6. Well, here's one abortion maximalist who doesn't shy away from such questions. Lots of things are living. The question is, which ones should we accord legal rights to, and why? If the living thing doesn't care whether it lives or dies — and this appears to be the case for most living things — and is not the property of someone who does care, then permission to kill it may be presumed. I strongly doubt fetuses are among the small minority of living things that care about whether they live or die, because they don't know enough to care.

    7. Isn't a non perfect gestation environment healthier than death?

      1. You would think so. I certainly do.

        1. You're not a biologist!

      2. Ask someone who was fucked up for life because their mother decided to do drugs while they were in utero. They are the only people qualified to answer that question.

        As it so happens, I'm one of those people. And my answer is this: No, I don't think a fucked-up gestation is "healthier" than non-existence.

        I say non-existence rather than death because a zygote or pre-viability fetus has no concept of living, or consciousness, or suffering, or death. They are simply small little existing entities. Once an abortion happens, they go from existing, to not existing. It's as simple as that. No conscious suffering, no existential dread, no fear, no tragic look back at their life.

        So from my point of view, who the hell could ever call themselves a moral person while advocating that complete non-suffering and quiet snuffing of existence is somehow horrible in comparison to a full life of suffering, dread, regret, possibly depression/suicidal ideation? It's like you guys have no respect (or experience) for just how bad life can be for some people. Just how fucked up your body and mind can be when inadequate or downright abusive people decide to keep you instead of aborting you before you were even aware of anything. (And now that life happens, you have ties in this world that would cause more suffering if you tried to kill yourself, so you resign yourself to your duty of staying alive for everyone else's comfort.)

        Anyways. I know people find that appalling. So many people truly believe that even a shitty life is better than no life. I can't get my head around it. The only conclusion I can come to is that most people just haven't suffered enough to know any better. (And if your retort is "I've suffered plenty and am fine," then reread previous sentence.)

        I guess to bring this around to the real question you're asking: Should we condone abortions from abusive/neglectful/unwilling mothers solely on the basis of the otherwise resulting child potentially/probably having a fucked-up childhood and life, when we would otherwise ban it?

        That depends on why you support a ban. Because all fetuses are speshul miracle gifts from your invisible sky friend? Then no; all life, no matter how shitty and full of suffering, is speshul, therefore no exception. Because obviously lustful women who (because she's of that inferior sex) *surely* must have seduced 20 helpless male strangers to fuck her and impregnate her, are useless scumbag whores, unintelligent, immoral cunts, who can't be trusted to know what's best for their own life, body, and children? Fuck no, stop all the whores from their sinful abortions; cut the bitch out of the picture through government force, and speshul wittle babeee will have a beautiful wonderful sunshiny life.

        Because you don't understand the full ramifications on complete strangers who, believe it or not, are often sane, rational, moral, considerate and kind, compassionate, loving, etc. human beings? Well then, it all depends on which way you fall. Are you going to research the actual science behind fetal development, and why they are not legally or morally considered people in our society if you look at the laws surrounding comparably-functioning adult vegetables? Or are you going to read and watch the propaganda, listen merely to your heartstrings, and shut out any conversation that dares treats fetuses as anything less than a born infant?

        In my opinion. Our world could do with a shit-ton less pain and suffering. I firmly believe that if only wanted pregnancies were taken to term, within a few generations we'd have a world so beautiful it'd move even the hardest of callous men to tears.

        Unfortunately in the meantime, we keep having people argue for stunted children to be born to parents who will do hard drugs around them, rape them, or sell them to pedophile rapists in exchange for said hard drugs. Or at the very least, leave them at home constantly and rarely feed them, maybe beating them for good measure because they annoyed them.

        1. That's a lot of emoting to not actually say anything of substance.

          1. I smelled a bullshit personal analogy or two in it as well.

            1. Notice how he hasn't given himself a powder burn to the temple yet, so obviously he considers being alive better than the alternative.

            2. Mammary-Fuhrer, WHERE do You buy Your Perfect Mind-Reading Tinfoil Hate-Hat?

              1. I don't have one. Why? Are you thinking of selling yours?

        2. Since such a person hasn't killed themselves, we can safely assume they would rather be alive than dead and are happy they were born. Otherwise, they would have committed suicide.

          Beyond that, if they are the only ones qualified to make that choice, then their mother isn't qualified either and has no right to make it for them. So, you just proved the point this thread is making.

          1. This is the dumbass who claimed "baby" is not a scientific term so it is actually a fetus and therefore has no rights. Bad use of science. Using Latin does not make you right.

            1. Okay, way to beg the question and assume the answer you want. Are you really so stupid you don't understand what you just did? Yeah, I think you are. Come back when you are smarter. Just because you call it a "fetus" doesn't mean shit. It is just the word you use. It says nothing about whether the fetus or whatever you want to call it is a human being entitled to rights.

              Beyond that, if it isn't, then explain what happens during the trip down the birth canal that transforms a lump of cells into a full human being? That is one hell of a magic trip if it does that.

              1. I think you misunderstood rbike's reply. I could be wrong.

                1. Briggs Cunningham isn't very bright, and argues with people who agree with him! Next, he'll be arguing with himself! "Multiple personality syndrome" may apply here...

                  1. At least he doesn’t eat feces.

        3. Congrats on becoming a functional grown-up despite having, um, a less than optimal start on life! Ditto on resisting any and all urges towards suicide!

          Now beware that the hypocritical assholes (quite a few of them here on this commenting board) will primp, preen, and brag about how "pro-life" they are... And then urge those who try to correct their "Perfect Opinions", to go ahead and commit suicide! THIS is just how "pro-life" these people are!

        4. Now do Downs Syndrome.

        5. Hi ZiemSky,

          I see you catching a lot of flack for your ideas and stances. BEWARE (not only of the pro-suicide "pro-life" hypocrites) of this: More data-driven and benevolent people draw the hatred of the worst folks, because we make them look bad!

          To understand this more fully (many details documented), read or at least skim the below, plus supporting links.

          The intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent members of tribes have ALWAYS been resented by those who are made to look relatively worse (often FAR worse), as compared to the advanced ones. Especially when the advanced ones denigrate tribalism. The advanced ones DARE to openly mock “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” And then that’s when the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers, etc., unsheath their long knives!

          “Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .

        6. Same way all of the holocaust victims chose to live in suffering rather than trying to rebel and guaranteeing death. Your life ain't that bad bucko. With that said, that is why most people are fine with early abortion and virtually everyone is with birth control.
          Also calling bullshit that fetuses aren't conscious and can't suffer.

          1. Do you know what causes consciousness? That's Nobel material if you do.

            1. Fanatics already know everything! The Nobel Committee is highly biased, is all!

    8. We can't ensure a "healthy gerontological environment" for elderly people in nursing homes. Best we just kill them when they are no longer self sustaining.

      1. Old geezers can feel pain. I seriously doubt that a blastocyst can feel pain. Nor do "un-born babies" ever get killed by greedy relatives seeking their inheritance NOW!

        1. The shit-muncher is still unsure of whether a 37-week baby feels pain.

          1. Moron can't read, or can't tell the difference between a "blastocyst" and "a 37-week baby".

            1. Shit-muncher thinks only "zygotes" are ever aborted.

              1. Red Rocks thinks "a 37-week baby" is ever aborted for what he considers "convenience," rather than life-or-death situations for the mother, or terrible pain and suffering for a few short minutes after birth for the very much wanted kid

                1. At what point does a fetus become a baby?

                  1. When it's blessed by the birth canal fairy during a magical trip through her hallway.

                2. It happens all the time. There isn't just one Kermit Gosnell out there.

              2. I sometimes roll around in my own shit and then eat it! And then, I wash it down with diet Coke. I love diet Coke, because it keeps me thin and sexy!

        2. "Old geezers can feel pain."

          So we can kill you as long as it is via a non-painful method?

          1. I support "capital punishment" for FIRMLY KNOWN killers, yes. Non-government-blessed killers of BORN babies and beyond, that is. NOT for ANYTHING else! And yes, the death penalty should be as painless as possible. ... Aborting an unborn "child" at any stage, when desired by the mother, is DIFFERENT than killing me! For just ONE thing, I can defend myself!

            "We" (whoever the "we" are in any given case) have the "rights" that we have earned and defended for ourselves. If fertilized egg cells (of ANY species!) want some "rights", they need to...
            'A) Go out and get themselves a JOB (and also a haircut, but that one's just a nice-to-have side option), selling goods and services to willing customers!
            ...and...
            'B) Buy themselves some up-to-date and tastefully-designed weapons with the proceeds of said job! It is NOT all that hard to do!!! (Unless you're a slacker).

            1. Aborting an unborn "child" at any stage, when desired by the mother, is DIFFERENT than killing me!

              Sqrlsy just tipped his hat. He's also a believer in the Birth Canal Fairy.

              1. Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death, is a Believer in the Sacred Human DNA... EXCEPT if the Sacred Human DNA belongs to a person who resists HER Perfect Opinions! THEN such persons should DIE-DIE-DIE!!!

                1. "Sqrlsy just tipped his hat"

                  It's a tinfoil hat. Look at him stamp his feet and scream.

            2. "Non-government-blessed killers of BORN babies and beyond, that is."

              This makes zero sense. What does being born have to do with it?

              You said that the distinguishing characteristic between a near vegitative geezer and an embryo is pain. So it seems to me that if I can keep you from feeling pain, I ought to be allowed to kill you if you are an inconvenience to me. Am I missing your logic somehow?

              1. "What does being born have to do with it?"

                It is an arbitrary line. We have to draw a line SOMEWHERE! Where is YOUR arbitrary line? And WHY do you feel the need to impose it on others?

                Killing geezers (as opposed to the unborn) ALSO (as I have already pointed out) runs the risk of inheritors or other property-grabbers, killing them TO GET AT THEIR PROPERTIES! The unborn HAVE no properties, so this nasty incentive does NOT exist!

                At the end of the day, SOME things need to be left to us and God, us and our conscience! When ALL "bad" things are outlawed, and all "GOOD" things are mandated, we have ZERO freedoms left! Divorce is bad! Over-eating and getting fat is bad! Do you want to outlaw divorce and getting fat? HOW MUCH POWER do you want and supposedly "need", power pig? HOW many punishments do you want to mete out? WHY can't "small government" be acceptable to you?

                1. So you're not going to impose your arbitrary line of birth? If someone wants to snuff out their baby because they don't want to take care of it, you're fine with them doing it either right before birth or right after?

                  If you're against doing it right after birth, you're imposing an arbitrary line on others.

                  1. Yeah, SQRLSY loves nothing better than asking outrageous questions. Because if he asks questions, he never has to take a stand. And if he never takes a stand, he never has to admit that he lacks principles.

                    1. I answered your questions, and you've not answered mine!

                      What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell? Ditto the punishments for likewise killing a fertilized egg of an ape... A monkey... A rat... An insect... If your Righteous Punishments from on High are DIFFERENT in these cases, then WHY? WHERE do the differences come from? And what gives YOU (or the 51% of the voters) the right to punish the rest of us?

                      Never, ever, have I gotten an answer, when I pose these questions, about what the PUNISHMENTS should be!

                      So when advanced space aliens come here, you're ready to blast them to smithereens, obliterate them at will... 'Cause they have no human DNA? Are not now, will never be, human? Or at the very least, you're not willing to punish any alien-murderers?

                      Murdering a space alien should be placed in the law books as a crime, pro-actively. And also to make a point to the troglodytes, about this "sacred human DNA" crap! WHERE does the sacredness come from, for cryin' out loud to Government Almighty?

                      Authoritarians and totalitarians: "No, lowly peons, we will NOT answer questions about what your punishments will be! Put us in TOTAL Power!!! POWER!!! POWER over your minds, your bodies, your every thought... And THEN your punishments will be revealed!!! BWAAAHHH-HA-HA!!!!"

                  2. I have the HUMILITY to recognize that I am one out of (?) 7.8 billion human beings, and am NOT the OverLard of all! If someone snuffs and already-born human in ButtFuckistanistanistanistan, or 3 counties over, or even in my town, I am NOT getting myself in a lather about it, or go killing some abortion doctors or weapons-sellers about it! I will vote for politicians who roughly agree with me. If I KNOW who the already-born-baby-killer was, and no one else knows, I would (under suitable circumstances) let the authorities know what I know! (Unless, for example, I am hiding from a Rethugglican-POTUS-gone-wild, who is lusting after killing me for having been involved in the underground abortion-pill trade). If that is me imposing my arbitrary stances, so be it! We (almost) ALL do it!

                2. "It is an arbitrary line. "

                  No it isn't...Just a few hours earlier you were insisting that the line was feeling pain.

                  So what is it? Can I stab an unborn baby through the head at 8.9 Months because it isn't born yet? Or is this about pain, where instead of stabbing that unborn baby (that can feel pain), we move the date back but instead declare open season on anyone who we appropriately anesthetize?

                  1. "Just a few hours earlier you were insisting that the line was feeling pain."

                    As one of many factors! I was pointing out the ridiculous nature of the self-righteous extremists who want to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH the "killers" of fertilized egg cells!

                    (I say punish them with a $1.53 fine, at most. What do YOU say?)

                  2. "...we move the date back but instead declare open season on anyone who we appropriately anesthetize?"

                    Your extreme language reveals you to be the self-righteous fanatic that you are! Never, ever, have I said that abortion is a GOOD thing, or that anyone should be forced to have one! It is merely the LEAST BAD thing that people can do, in many different kinds of unfortunate circumstances! And so the law needs to stay OUT of the way!

                    Imagine that Overt says: "If I was on the balcony of a skyscraper, and I saw a madman on the balcony of a skyscraper across the street, shooting wildly into the crowd below... And I clearly had NO other method of stopping the madness immediately, then, if I had a rifle or other gun handy, I'd take careful aim, and shoot the madman dead."

                    Now do you think it would be a fair accusation for me to accuse you of promoting just going out there, willy-nilly, and shooting other people, whenever we feel like it?

                    Overt, get a grip... You're falling victim of self-righteous, no-holds-barred fanaticism!

      2. WE can't ensure that for a lot of people. People in prison and the mentally ill to name two. Lets kill the old, the sick, the criminal, and the insane. It would make society so much tidier or something.

        1. Assuming Putin wouldn't get replaced by a WORSE authoritarian and totalitarian, killing Putin WOULD make the world a LOT better! If we killed ALL of the extreme authoritarians and totalitarians, of EVERY political stripe, we'd have damned near Heaven on Earth!

          The extreme authoritarians and totalitarians are the sickest of the sick, among the "mentally ill"! (Healing and reforming them would be a damned sight better than killing them, of course.)

          To wrap your mind around this, start here… M. Scott Peck, the People of the Lie, https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/
          People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these people of the lie work in the lives of those around them. He presents, from vivid incidents encountered in his psychiatric practice, examples of evil in everyday life.

          Do NOT be an authoritarian and-or a totalitarian! It does NOT lead to your Happy Place!

      3. Ah, the Cuomo Gambit.

    9. We don't know what happens to the psyche of those who are not born. Do they just wait for the next available body to infest? Could it be anywhere in the world, or does it have to be in the same womb? Do they keep their place in line, or have to go to the back, or what?

      It seems reasonable to think that those who would've had a chance at a deformed human life will then get a chance at a good one instead. On the other hand, they might enter as another species entirely. In the latter case, it too might be deformed or a good specimen.

      Since none of us know the answers to these questions, how is it our place to criticize?

      1. To fanatics, it is their job to tell God who he or she is, and what to do! They do NOT have the humility to "Be still, and know that I am God." (I have felt that quiet, unspoken "spirit" in nature, when quiet and alone, relaxing, doing nothing but observing. No, I didn't hear any voices. It is a quiet, content, non-busy-body spirit, is all.)

        Humble people are at least somewhat "empty", having empty space left over for God/Nature/Spirit/Conscience/Consciousness to "speak" to them, and fill some empty spaces. Full-of-themselves people having NO empty spaces left? God-Nature-etc. can NOT tell them ANYTHING, since they already know it ALL!!!

  5. Also, Twitter isn't the government, so it can't violate anyone's First Amendment rights.

    The govt isn't making decisions on who to ban, they are just deciding who gets to make the decision.

    Musk's $44 bln buyout of Twitter faces U.S. antitrust review -report
    https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-44-bln-buyout-twitter-faces-ftc-antitrust-review-report-2022-05-05/

    1. That, and "encouraging" certain decisions.

    2. https://www.foxnews.com/media/disinformation-czar-tweets-covid-hunter-biden-nina-jankowicz

      During a recent conversation with NPR, Jankowicz discussed Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter where she voiced concern that "free speech absolutists" would have negative consequences for marginalized communities on social media platforms. She reiterated her point in an April 25 tweet.

      "Last week I told @NPRMICHEL: I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities…which are already shouldering…disproportionate amounts of this abuse," she wrote.

      Conservative critics also knocked the "disinformation czar" for claiming that "free spirited" Americans would not comply with social distancing recommendations "unless they’re forced upon" them.

      "So force away! Lock us down. People are not taking this seriously," she wrote in part.

      Another tweet from January saw Jankowicz come under fire for her claim that "there are many non-binary people who give birth," and for using the term "pregnant people" rather than women.

      1. I hope she got the memo. Now that the left is restarting their "war on women" narrative, it's now "women" again rather than "birthing persons."

        1. I am a man, yet I am also a birthing person! Yes, indeed!

          Here I sit, my cheeks a-flexin',
          Giving birth, to another Texan!

          They are often SOOO large, I have to spank them when they come out!

          1. Dinner time for the squirrel!

      2. Absolutism for abortion rights, "Yes!"

        Absolutism for speech rights, "Now just wait a minute!"

        (I know, logical and moral consistency is racist.)

        1. Better than that, anyone who Isn’t an abortion rights absolutist up thru making a born baby comfortable while we decide it’s fate is an extremist zealot,
          while anyone Not in favor of Nina Jankowitz deciding which Democrat-safe news stories can be spread is also an extremist.

    3. I'm pretty sure Berenson's case is arguing exactly that*, saying that his ban came days after a publicly announced meeting between government officials and twitter executives. The meeting which happened only days after he was assured, in writing, by a twitter executive that his reporting was okay, and twitter wanted to see "more like it" on the platform. Did the government tell Twitter to stifle Berenson's free speech? Maybe, but Berenson has gotten the go ahead to do discovery to find out. It'll take months, but I imagine some fascinating crap comes out of this, oh, yeah, just in time for the mid-terms. Awesome!

      [*in addition to the contract dispute]

    4. I wouldn't make to much of that at the moment--a review like that is pretty standard when it comes to multi-billion-dollar businesses.

    5. And again, as Prof Volokh has pointed out on this very site, when a politician attempts to influence a private institution, the institutions can fall under 1a guidance due to the influence.

      1. That's an important point.

    6. By the way. Want to crow that the judge is allowing the same contractions arguments than I and many others here have made for a few years to the dismissal of the pro censorship side.

      1. That was my thought as well. Haha, suck it Dee!

  6. So that's the biggest threat to freedom and not the progressives literally controlling speach.

    Fuck off and die enb

    1. Our Betters are protecting us from misinformation.

      1. What misinformation color code is today?

        1. We are at defcon purple

        2. Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law
          Blackwatch Plaid

          https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0802552/

          1. Back when Stephen Colbert was still funny.

      2. Big Sister is Watching You.

    2. Cry more snowflake

      1. Literally your tears, not his.

      2. A rapier wit.

  7. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1522584814725079042

    "Lula said Biden and EU leaders failed to do enough to negotiate with Russia in the run-up to its invasion."

    "The United States has a lot of political clout. And Biden could have avoided war, not incited it," Lula said. "This is the kind of attitude you expect from a leader."

    1. "This is the kind of attitude you expect from a leader."

      Well, you got droolin' Joe instead.

    2. Trudeau was facing open rebellion, Boris was facing a party firing squad, Biden's polling was in the toilet with disastrous midterms looming, Macron and the French deep state was looking to lose to Le Pen, and the wages of Angela Merkel's sins were looking to be paid by the CDU.

      Of course they were going to incite a war.

  8. "Anita Dunn will return as a Senior Advisor"

    Is this the same Anita Dunn who advised Harvey Weinstein just as the world was about to learn he's a serial rapist? I guess she was really grateful for all his Planned Parenthood donations!

    #AbortionAboveAll

  9. "Ending Roe Threatens More Than Abortion Rights"

    Ending RvW leaves the matter up to the states; that's the sum total of the effect.
    Your headline is mealy-mouthed bullshit. Stuff it up your ass ENB.

    1. Touched a nerve there fuckface?

      Medical privacy of any kind should not be left to government to decide.

      Just another authoritarian fuck masquerading as a 'libertarian' here. Fuck off you freedom hating dumbass.

      1. Odd response from someone that’s losing.

      2. "Medical privacy of any kind should not be left to government to decide."

        Weren't you just banging your drum for vaccine mandates earlier, Tony? Such a fucking hypocrite.

        1. He's still using his Trump-o-meter to determine his positions on issues.

          1. To these people, a woman's right to choose does not exist outsider her vagina and womb.

  10. "There's some hope that if Roe v. Wade is overturned and the legality of abortion is left up to individual states, we could see a kinder, gentler national politics."

    Seriously? By whom? I'd like whatever they're smoking. The "United" States will continue its devolution into two nations: Autocratic populists in the red nation and autocratic socialists in the blue.

    1. ^ there is hope that the pro-abortion wing will over-react and try to pass a law (or amendment)n to give you actual bodily autonomy, not realizing it could open the door to striking down the entire government apparatus controlling every aspect of your bodily autonomy today.

      1. Don't assume that there won't be exceptions for things like whether people can be punished for not getting COVID shots.

        1. the penumbras and emanations from the amendment's text will surely call for forced vaccinations.. that's obvious

  11. "In discourse about Roe v. Wade being overturned and states severely restricting or limiting abortions, much of the discussion is (rightly) focused on the potential fallout for those with unwanted or unsustainable pregnancies. It's girls and women of childbearing age on whom such prohibitions would fall the hardest, or at least the most directly."

    I guess this applies to any self-induced undesired consequences. Perhaps need a Roe-like decision to absolve girls and women of childbearing age from contract obligations, financial debt, and over-eating.

  12. https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1522447389080051712

    U.S. limits use of J&J's COVID vaccine on blood clot risks

    1. https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1522471725480517633

      “We didn’t understand that it’s a fairly low fatality rate and that it’s a disease mainly in the elderly, kind of like flu is, although a bit different than that.”

      - Bill Gates

      1. I think he’s actually disappointed it didn’t kill more people.

      2. Holy shit that is amazing.

    2. DISINFORMATION!!!!11!111!!!! DEBOOOOOONKED!!!11!!!

    3. Better be careful the Disinformation Czar doesn't come after you

  13. Until Reason's leading economics expert returns to his regular commenting schedule, I'll do my best to fill in.

    Good morning Peanuts! Don't listen to wingnut.com operations like "CNN" when they tell you voters are dissatisfied with Biden's handling of the economy. That's disinformation. In fact the Biden economy is the best ever because Warren Buffett is getting richer and rig count is up.

    #DefendBidenAtAllCosts

    1. Biden solved the low labor participation rate by using inflation to force retirees back into the labor market.

      https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-economy-sends-americans-into-unretirement

  14. It's such a shame woman and men are incapable of controlling whether they get pregnant. Abortion is such a clear necessary in the absence of any existing contraceptives.

    1. If only we had such choices as condoms, the pill, abstinence, or abortion for the first 12 weeks!

      1. This why the dem senators keep voting against otc birth control.

    2. Hey, modern Americans have no more control over pregnancy than over personal debt, body weight, career prep, or voting choice.

      1. We are all nothing, eternally at the whims of a universe over which we have no control.

    3. It’s like the 1st commandment of hookup culture is “Ye shall let losers cum in thee”.

      1. "If I'm gunna lay pipe, I'm gunna lay pipe, gnomesane?"

  15. This is why we can't have nice things. If we overturn this ruling and return the voting to the states we might get horrible horrible results in some areas of the country so we should keep all the power on a federal level where we might get horrible horrible results for the entire country.

    1. I want to frame this comment. Well played!

  16. As I stated in a previous article All libritarian should cheer the federal gov ceding power to the states

    If that is not your view you are not libritarian

    1. Hence the lack of cheering from resident progressive moron ENB

  17. Fuck Joe Biden

    1. Fuck Joe Biden

  18. If abortion is banned, we would likely start to see a lot more children born with severe birth defects and developmental issues.

    Reason: Supporting eugenics since 2022!

    1. No kidding. I'm very sympathetic to the difficulties that a child can add to life, much more so for developmentally disabled children. I have to wonder if "if we don't kill the cripples then we'll see more of them" is really the winning argument.

      1. You know who else wanted to kill the cripples?

        1. The Spartans?

        2. Planned Parenthood?

        3. The Bloods?

          1. So close, it was the Bloodles.

        4. Yeh! Adolf Hitler!

  19. "Ending Roe Threatens More Than Abortion Rights"

    Indeed. One Democratic Congressman even pointed out that the next thing rightwing extremist judges like Clarence Thomas and rightwing extremist Senators like Mitch McConnell will do is ban interracial marriage.

    #SlipperySlopeIsNotAFallacyWhenDemocratsUseIt

    1. Interracial marriage, sodomy, bringing back slavery - it's all on the table now!!!!

    2. Watch Tony claim that those two will be anti-miscegenation in 3... 2... 1...

  20. Twitter is a “PrIvAtE cOmPaNy” until a private individual tries to buy it.

    1. This ^

    2. "Twitter is a private company and can moderate their platform however they see fit"

      "Ok fine I'll let Babylon Bee make jokes again"

      "NOOOOOO not like that! We need congress to intervene"

  21. Seriously, ENB is going crazy over abortion. Talk about mindless projection. She is just nuts. Between abortion and sex workers, I am not sure what her deal is.
    - We do not have a Dobbs decision
    - What will really change if Roe/Casey are gone? Not much

    I thought libertarians wanted governmental decision-making pushed to the lowest possible level, so that the views of the people are most accurately reflected. What happened to those libertarians?

    1. Most left in late 2016, early 2017, as the writers here started using Reason as their audition piece for The Daily Beast and Salon.

    2. Perhaps ENB is having one of those female "spells". You know how taxing writing can be on the gals.

    3. "Seriously, ENB is going crazy over abortion. "

      She literally wrote "abortion" 56 times in this morning's links. 56 times!

    4. I thought libertarians wanted governmental decision-making pushed to the lowest possible level

      Pro-choice libertarians see bodily autonomy as a fundamental individual right. No libertarian would see pushing the decision to violate individual rights to a lower level of government as acceptable. Appealing to federalism isn't a valid argument in the context of whether local government can somehow differently violate individual rights.

      If you don't think abortion rights are about bodily autonomy or that the fetus's right to life somehow trumps the woman's right to bodily autonomy then make that argument.

      1. If you don't think abortion rights are about bodily autonomy or that the fetus's right to life somehow trumps the woman's right to bodily autonomy then make that argument.

        Without any limits whatsoever?

        1. I think there should be limits based on viability. My reasoning is that you have the right to evict the baby from your body as part of your bodily autonomy. If this could be done where the fetus/baby could be medically supported to live then no rights are in conflict. Abortion is only a valid exercise of your rights if your right to bodily autonomy is in conflict with the rights of the fetus to life.

          Roe was decided on very very shaky reasoning, but it seems to me like they incorrectly stumbled upon a reasonable compromise on the conflicting rights at hand, without ever really acknowledging that.

          1. I think there should be limits based on viability. My reasoning is that you have the right to evict the baby from your body as part of your bodily autonomy. If this could be done where the fetus/baby could be medically supported to live then no rights are in conflict.

            Jesus Christ, women aren't going to have a C-section of a 35-week pregnancy just to avoid the gruesome procedures required to terminate a pregnancy at that stage. This idea of "bodily autonomy" also has to take in to account when a fetus becomes an actual being deserving of legal protections. Again, most people want at least SOME restrictions on abortion. So the challenge to you is, where exactly should those restrictions be placed, based on what scientific evidence?

          2. Can you drop a 1 day old infant on the ground if your muscles begin to hurt from holding it?

            1. Can the government force you to get a vaccine if it saves just 1 life?

              Unfortunately neither of those questions are really about abortion. You should try addressing why my argument is invalid instead of hyperbole and non sequiturs.

              1. Your application of what the balance if rights is if applied consistently allows abandonment of a 1 day old infant without providing it safety.

                Sorry your arguments are so easily broken.

          3. I think there necessarily will be. I mean, certain folks speaking in hysterics speak of banning abortion even in cases of ectopic pregnancy being banned, I think those will remain though. Not withstanding cases where law is written so shitty that it bans it, as in Missouri. I accept that intent is different from bad draftsmanship though. (Still think we don't focus enough on the actual text of laws though, see the Florida shit recently.)

            People seem very, very comfortable even with allowing abortion in the case of rape, something I am actually against and think shifts the pro-life argument into pregnancy being just punishment for women who didn't behave, or some other such ugly moralist sentiment besides the point of a baby being a human life.

            Sort of rambly, but I think your point is reasonable and in all likelihood we will see this. Where the needle is placed will vary by each state, after which the real battle can begin which is one of hearts-and-minds rather than law.

      2. If you don't think abortion rights are about bodily autonomy or that the fetus's right to life somehow trumps the woman's right to bodily autonomy then make that argument.

        At what point does a fetus become a baby?

        1. I'm not a biologist.

          I already discussed the point at which the positive right to life becomes negative, and that's all that is relevant in my argument. But you'd hope that lawmakers would want to address that point, instead of picking random weeks of gestational life that tend towards whatever their viewpoint is.

          1. "...the woman's right to bodily autonomy..."

            Obviously you are.

          2. I'm not a biologist.

            Is that you, Ketanji Brown-Jackson?

            Anyway, your profession is irrelevant to the question. If harming an infant would be considered a violation of the NAP, at what point does a fetus become an infant and deserving of those protections?

            I already discussed the point at which the positive right to life becomes negative, and that's all that is relevant in my argument.

            No, it's not. If an abortion actually does involve the unnecessary, violent cruelty to a living thing, then at what point does that line appear? You don't have to believe that life begins at conception to consider that question, and it's telling that a lot of people are too afraid to actually engage it, as it might actually involve considerations beyond mere utilitarianism.

            1. The difference in living inside someone else's body. The relevant question then is how absolute is a person's right to control what goes on in their own body.

              1. Hey, I hate the years-long effects of tiredness, hunger, and boredom in my body when I am forced to work for a living. Where's my Roe?

            2. If harming an infant would be considered a violation of the NAP, at what point does a fetus become an infant and deserving of those protections?

              At the point that they could live without violating the woman's rights to control her own body, aka viability. That's the line I've drawn and I think it's a reasonable point where the rights are no longer in conflict.

              If an abortion actually does involve the unnecessary, violent cruelty to a living thing, then at what point does that line appear? You don't have to believe that life begins at conception to consider that question

              I fully acknowledged that a zygote, fetus, whatever is alive. That doesn't mean that it has a valid claim to a right to life. That point is irrelevant to me. The distinction is a positive right vs a negative right. Similarly a person dying of a disease is alive, but can't compel a doctor to provide treatment against his will. That would be another situation where the living person doesn't have a valid positive right to life.

              1. There's always the question with abortion though of the positive act that needs to take place. For instance, we do not criminally try accidental miscarriage, and in-fact abortion is considered a positive act to the point that the word exists to describe a specific type of miscarriage.

                So, we're at where the line gets hard once again. For your doctor point, we cannot compel the doctor to provide treatment, we should also be incredibly cautious about the doctor actively killing a patient. And, for pregnancy, that will continue much of the time unless active steps are taken to terminate it.

                I'm trying to keep this post tight so as not to wander too much into other topics.

              2. At the point that they could live without violating the woman's rights to control her own body, aka viability.

                So when exactly is that?

              3. How about infants who can’t feed, clothe, or shelter themselves from elements?
                Is there a positive/negative right conundrum there for mothers of infants? Toddlers?

          3. "I'm not a biologist"

            Medical and biology textbooks are pretty clear that a chordate's individual existence begins with the first mitosis of the fused cell.

            Are you sure you want to go with that?

            1. Life is irrelevant to the argument. You don't have an absolute positive right to life, even as a full-grown adult as I've pointed out above.

              1. "Life is irrelevant to the argument. You don't have an absolute positive right to life"

                Sorry but I'm never going agree with that, and, quite frankly, find that argument morally repugnant.

              2. So then why do some people get to claim an unencumbered life?

    5. I am very much not clear that federalism is a major point for many libertarians. You can see Reason is split on that a lot as well, though that gets hidden by the fact that the most of the big dogs (basically the folks who write a lot daily and are on the Reason Roundup) seem to lean more towards an outcome based ideology rather than a process based.

      1. Libertarian or not, conservative or liberal, pro-life or pro-choice, all citizens have an interest in government remaining lawful and following the constitution that both grants and limits its power. A lawless government is no government at all.

        1. They should. And I think there is a definite contingency of libertarians who understand that rule based order is important. Definitely it's require philosophically even if the rule is minimally Natural Law or something else similarly minarchist.

          I think most Reason writers, if pressed without context would say the same in fact. I think they tend to argue oftentimes as if they don't care about it though.

        2. Good point, CE! Well said. Thanks.

    6. pushed to the lowest possible level, so that the views of the people are most accurately reflected.

      Shyeah, that's called "Populism" and we're not having any of that around these hallowed halls. There are cocktails parties to attend.

    7. Real libertarians do.

      Leftist faux libertarians like jeff want rule through the elite.

  22. I will be eagerly awaiting Reason's article on the new Office of Environmental Justice.

    1. You'll be waiting for a while. There's still 12 abortion articles 3 DeSantis articles ahead of it.

  23. This is probably the most disgusting Roundup I can remember.

    1. That’s why it was so late.

    2. Let's just spend a minute looking at ENB's arguments here.

      Her first argument is:
      "People who don't want to be pregnant aren't always capable of or willing to provide a healthy gestational environment...Sometimes women abort because it is the more compassionate option."

      How many things can we find wrong with one statement? First, let's drill into "Sometimes". She uses these weasel words several times in the article, because- like all good lefties- ENB wants to paint a picture of women getting abortion as poor black girls who just can't help themselves from partying and sexing and whatnot. Let's not linger on just how shitty she is being, and instead talk about how badly she is distorting reality:

      https://givingcompass.org/article/the-demographic-breakdown-of-women-who-are-getting-abortions

      The vast majority (64%) of women receiving abortions are college educated- 23% of them already graduated from college. The majority of abortions are not inner city mothers, but women early in their college or professional career who are aborting a baby because it will derail their life plans. I get it that it is a huge life change, I'm not arguing that. I am pointing out that ENB is trying to tug on our heart strings with edge cases.

      I think it is incredibly cynical to argue that a disability such as fetal alcohol syndrome (which is very rare) is such a burden that in all cases the appropriate response is to kill the patient before they are able to make that decision for themselves. How many adults who lived through FAS- if asked today- would say they wish they had never been born? It takes hubris of enormous magnitude for ENB to simultaneously insist that women ought to decide what is right for themselves while also insisting that she would make that same decision for an unborn girl.

      But even *IF* we were to accept such a cynical and morally hypocritical calculation, we still have to deal with the fact that these cases are on the margins. She is NOT arguing that we should let abused babies be killed out of compassion. She is arguing that MANY babies be killed because some small number are abused and ought to be killed out of compassion.

      I'd like to say I am surprised that ENB would float this disgusting calculation, but it is not a surprise to me. I know exactly what is happening: She has been sitting around watching the Twitteratti process all of these arguments like a big, liberal petrie dish. Rather than test her own ideas with people who might not agree with her, she instead watched certain colonies of lefty ideas amalgamate and prosper within their bubble until she thinks she has a zinger to share with us. This is yet more proof that the best thing that could happen to ENB's intellectual development is for her to shut off Twitter, or at least go find some followers outside of her urbanite-blue circle.

      1. Hey, you can't expect college girls, er, women, er, uterus-oppressed victims, to (1) know how conception happens, (2) know how to prevent that, and (3) take appropriate actions. Besides, we have been told that every encounter with a penis-wielding oppressor ends with involuntary rape.

        1. People are less rational than anyone likes to think. Especially when it comes to highly instinctual and emotional things, and in particular sex. Sometimes we're just monkeys fucking (especially when alcohol is involved).
          Not that that absolves anyone of responsibility for their actions. But being in the throes of passion does impair decision making. It's not an excuse, but it is the reality of being an animal driven largely by instinct and emotion. Traditions and social institutions and social disapproval have been somewhat effective at tempering these things, so there is a sensible conservative reaction to such observations.

          1. So then, no justification for broad voting rights?

      2. "People who don't want to be pregnant aren't always capable of or willing to provide a healthy gestational environment...Sometimes women abort because it is the more compassionate option."

        Her entire argument rests on the idea that "people who don't want to be pregnant," have no other options for not being pregnant, outside of abortion. Contraception is inexpensive or even free, widely available, and can be up to 99% effective, depending on the method. If you want 100% effective contraception, abstinence is also an option. None of the pro-aborts want to mention or discuss the topic of reproductive responsibility as being a part of reproductive freedom. In the vast majority of abortion cases, nobody was forced to have sex, so nobody was forced to get pregnant. They got pregnant through their own choices. Until they're willing to admit that unwanted pregnancy is a direct result of a choice that entails known risk, I don't take them seriously.

        Absolving women of their responsibility while exercising their "reproductive freedom," is a completely unlibertarian position. Libertarianism relies on individual responsibility for their own outcomes.

        1. Yeah, I'm not sure a lot of people have processed the idea that "planned parenthood" should also include "planning before actually having sex."

          Again, as far as abortion is concerned, there is a debate to be had between "every sperm is sacred" and "allow us to abort clumps of cells all the way through the magic birth canal trip for any reason we desire". But no one wants to engage in that because it might actually involve some real, actual considerations to make beyond the metaphysical or utilitarian.

          1. I'm pro-life. I believe life begins at conception. But even I recognoze that there are miles of daylight between "no abortion ever," and "abortion whenever."

            I live in a free society and not everyone shares my religious belief in when life begins. I'm willing to accept a reduction in harm RIGHT NOW, rather than hold out for the perfect solution that entirely accomodates my beliefs.

            1. The abortion supporters just couldn't be happy with what they already had. They have to push for reversal of the Hyde Amendment, late-term abortions, etc. Abortion supporters have also rallied their troops by having celebrities talk about how happy they were to have one. Instead of finding ways to make this procedure less necessary, they are encouraging it. So many people have lost perspective. I always thought it was enlightening that Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founder of NARAL that had performed thousands of abortions, turned pro-life after he viewed via ultrasound an abortion being performed.

          2. Why isn't anyone discussing Maryland trying to legalize the murder of perinatal infants?
            Seems like it'd be a good one to throw in, considering it isn't the first state that comes to mind when you think of retarded progressives.
            See H2
            https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2022RS/bills/sb/sb0669f.pdf
            Note that charging someone other than the pregnant person for causing a fetal death is exempted.

            1. Why isn't anyone discussing Maryland trying to legalize the murder of perinatal infants?

              Probably because when Virginia Dems tried to pass a similar bill, Northam fucked up by admitting on the air that such a bill allowed literal infanticide.

        2. One has to bear in mind, however, that birth control methods are not 100% fool proof; They can, and sometimes do fail, even when people act responsibly, and put their best foot forward by using contraception.

          I'll also add that there are times when carrying a pregnancy to term, and birthing the baby, whether a woman or girl wants to or not, can and will present a real danger to a girl or woman's mental and physical health as well.

          Also, not everybody can afford to raise children, and not all people are meant to be parents.

      3. It's not just killing them "before they are able to make that decision for themselves", it's killing them before they care, so making sure they can never have any regrets about it. What you don't know can't hurt you. All value is subjective.

        1. If I shoot you in the back of the head and you didn't see it coming, you'd have no regrets about your death, either.

  24. "If abortion is banned, we would likely start to see a lot more children born with severe birth defects and developmental issues."

    This is a fantastic point we abortion-until-birth advocates don't make nearly enough. It's like, doesn't it make you wanna puke when you see barely human creatures like dwarves? Or retarded people who are so obviously retarded you can tell they're retarded just by looking at their stupid ugly retarded face?

    Wouldn't you like to live in a world in which you don't have to breathe the same air as those genetic defectives? Abortion can make that happen!

    #LibertariansForEradicatingTheUnfit
    #SupportingAbortionMakesMeAGoodPerson

    1. #AryansForPlannedParenthood

    2. The veil really got lifted back on this one. That second paragraph is sarcasm in a different from that which we usually see from you OBL.

      1. *different tone from that which we usually see from you, OBL.

    3. Holy this this made me laugh.

    4. #LibertariansForAktionT4

      Looks like we're back to saying nice things about Nazi policies for the unfit again.

    5. I thought you hired "those" people to make you money. I guess you can always bring some more immigrants in to fill their shoes.

  25. "A new Florida law would erode students' fundamental right to learn history accurately,"

    How accurate is the 1691 Project?

    1. There is no way that the history courses one gets as high school students are or can be totally "accurate." They are survey courses, and must gloss over everything except the high points and teach practically nothing about why events happened and what the consequences were. Only if you become a lifelong "student of history" will you learn the nuances of the "heroes and villains" view of history that is presented in K-12 history courses.

  26. Shorter ENB: any restrictions on abortion means living under the iron fist of Pope Hitler.

    1. Hoes mad.

  27. Banning Abortion Would Encourage Censorship

    The pro-abortion crowd is among the most censorious groups in the U.S. Look at California, where they tried to outlaw the practice of not giving information about abortion to expectant mothers at religious pregnancy centers.

  28. "President Biden Announces Karine Jean-Pierre as White House Press Secretary"

    Talk about a box checker. Woman, black, LGBT.

    Go ahead and try and give this lady pushback, but prepare to immediately be labeled a racist, misogynist, sexist, homophobic bigot!

    Im betting day 2-3 Peter Doocy gets called the above for giving her any pushback.

    1. HE WOULD NEvER TALK TO HER THAT WAY IF SHE WERE WHITE!!!!

      1. ^Paging Scaramuicci

        1. Some skeptical publication needs a black, gay woman in a wheel chair.

  29. Oh, and a Maggie Haberman tweet to round out the list for the week.

    Well done, ENB.

  30. Hoes mad.

  31. I notice that “don’t let losers cum in you” is never bandied about by abortion enthusiasts. I wonder why that is.

    1. Male abortion enthusiasts do not want to become incels.

  32. Banning abortion may or may not do all or any of those things, but would overturning Roe ban abortion?

    1. No. Ending Roe V Wade would have no effect on abortion in and of itself. It would merely return the question to the states, or perhaps force the Supreme Court to make a new, better legal decision than the shitstorm that was Roe.

  33. "A new Florida law would erode students' fundamental right to learn history accurately," suggest American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida Political Director Kirk Bailey and Communications Strategist Zuri Davis (formerly of Reason).

    You mean yet another former Reason writer has gone on to work for a progressive Democratic publication or organization? It's wonderful how often that happens. 🙂

  34. Abortion is a complex issue, and I’m totally fine with leaving that decision up to the mother.

    However, I am not OK with the charade that our government must protect individual privacy rights by allowing abortion on demand, but for no other rights anywhere ever.

    If she’s free to choose to have an abortion, then a father should be free to choose child support and alimony, the drug war should end, licensure laws should go away, the FDA should lose the ability to ban any medical procedures, all medicine should be available without a prescription, etc.

    End the charade.

    1. Abortion is a complex issue, and I’m totally fine with leaving that decision up to the mother.

      With or without any limits whatsoever?

      1. I think...I would take Brian's bargain. And I say that as a strident anti-abortion advocate.

        In return for the government no longer intervening to protect the rights of an unborn baby from its mother, the government no longer has the right to intervene on anyone's behalf to protect them from a violation of rights.

        It would be a much more brutal world, much like the frontier days. But I'm not certain it would be more or less moral in practice.

        1. Agree 100%

    2. Exactly. Add right to refuse sketchy vaccinations, and right to try whatever experimental treatment you want, when you are facing, say, terminal cancer right in the eye.

    3. I don't think any pro-choice libertarian is going to argue with you on those points. It's why we should be making arguments based on individual rights and not emotions. That consistency is what separates us from the left and right. We should consistently argue for liberty regardless of whether we like the outcomes.

      1. Define individual to exclude the individual in the womb.

        1. I've addressed this point many times. There are two individuals with conflicting rights in the case of abortion. The pro-abortion absolutists and the pro-life absolutists both don't understand this concept, it seems. No right is absolute, even the right to life when it conflicts with another person's rights, and positive rights aren't valid claims for rights. Said differently, you don't have the right to be kept alive if it requires the use of the labor or property of another person. Your valid right to life is negative in nature, meaning someone can't simply kill you if you aren't violating their rights. My view is consistent with this outlook.

          Prior to viability the fetus's claim to a right to life is positive. It can't live without the support of the mother. By definition that's what viability means. In this scenario I don't view this as a valid right, prior to viability.

          After viability the fetus's claim to a right to life is a valid negative right. I think this point in a pregnancy, viability, is a reasonable point in a pregnancy that after such time it's reasonable to require that the woman gives deference to the fetus's right to life. Deliver the baby and let it live.

          1. Agreed. There are conflicting rights which you ignored above.

            So you are stating inconvenience of one individual trumps the right to life of the other individual. Is that an argument you agree with?

            1. Bodily autonomy is not an inconvenience. You're misrepresenting my position, as usual. Have a good day.

              1. Lol. Your argument is so weak you run away.

                Instead of clarifying against a simple question you realized you couldn't.

          2. I've addressed this point many times. There are two individuals with conflicting rights in the case of abortion.

            Everyone understands that. What you don't understand or just refuse to understand is that one of those people, the mother, created the situation through her actions. The child didn't chose to exist. The mother made that decision for the child. So, the mother has the responsibility to carry the child to term. Since she created the situation, she has no right to murder the child in the name of her rights.

            1. I understand that and it's one of the uniqe aspects of this debate that makes the issue even grayer. I tried thinking if an analogous situation and couldn't readily come up with one.

              Likewise, I can't think of another situation where a prior, non-criminal decision causes us to lose our rights. That's essentially your argument here. But that's not how rights should work, at least in my opinion. Similarly I don't lose the rights to my property, simply because I've made the decision to allow you onto my property. I'm fully within my rights to then defend my property against your transgressions even though I initially welcomed you to it.

              1. Likewise, I can't think of another situation where a prior, non-criminal decision causes us to lose our rights.

                I can. It is a long standing principle in the law that although there is no generalized duty to assist someone in distress, if your actions created the situation, you have a duty to assist them. So, if are drowning in a pool in front of me, I have no duty to try and save you. If, however, you are drowning becuase I pushed you in, I have a duty and can be criminally liable if I don't try and save you.

                It is a bedrock principle of Western law that a person who creates a situation has a duty to help those he put in that situation. You are just dead wrong thinking otherwise or thinking this is some kind even conflict. It isn't.

                1. If, however, you are drowning becuase I pushed you in, I have a duty and can be criminally liable if I don't try and save you.

                  The pusher in this case aggressed the person drowning. They violated the NAP prior and it was their action that put the person's life in immediate danger.

                  That's not at all the case with consensual sex. In fact, in the majority of cases that end in abortion there was ZERO intent to create a new life, much less put it in danger.

                  Your analogy has some holes in it.

                  1. Imagine the person who pushed the other person in did so by accident. Maybe they were dancing around the pool and bumped into the other person.

                  2. No intent? OK, so they're drowning because... let's say it was because you were having sex next to the pool and accidentally pushed them in. How's that?

              2. Situation that causes you to lose your rights?
                Actually delivering the baby. Raising a child properly is a lot closer to slavery than gestating one.

                1. Which everybody knows but few will admit this is really about.

                  1. I'm sure that's part of the decision to abort, but there are certainly ways to rid yourself of an already-born baby if you so desire, without criminal liability. Most women who abort don't want to go through 9 months of gestation and then childbirth.

                    1. But why should there be any criminal liability at all for disposing of an unwanted child in any manner the mother sees fit? The child is completely dependent on the mother, who is forced to give up most of her time, freedom, attention, and even basic bodily autonomy (adequate sleep, carrying a child everywhere and being forced to take them everywhere, bending over to lift them up constantly - do you understand just how exhausting, backbreaking, and, at times, awful, that is?). Why should the mother be forced to find alternatives to abandonment or homicide? If no one will take the child, can she abandon or kill it then?

                      I'm not convinced merely being inside the mother makes all the difference between whether this being is a "child" entitled to the right not to be killed or just a "clump of cells" which can be removed for any reason or no reason.

                    2. BTW, appreciate your courteous approach to this issue, even though we appear to strongly disagree.

            2. Is there such a thing as an inalienable right?

              Is it possible that the right to bodily autonomy is such a right?

              1. If there is, then the right to life certainly is one too. And it would take precedence over everything else. There is nothing more fundamental than the right to live.

                1. There is nothing more fundamental than the right to live.
                  Would you be justified in killing someone in defense of your property? I'm not pro death penalty, but that again would be a case that you don't have an "absolute" right.

                  If you don't like the criminal elements of those examples, it's important to make a distinction on whether the "absolute" right to life is positive. You can draw a parallel between requiring a mother to carry a baby and requiring a doctor to provide medical care against his will and without pay. Both imply an absolute, positive right to life.

                  1. What about forcing a mother to care for a born baby?
                    Or, a father to provide financial support regardless of whether he has any custody rights at all.

                    1. Don't most places have safe harbor laws allowing mothers to drop off unwanted babies at a police station or something?

              2. Inalienable doesn't mean absolute. I can't think of any right that is absolute.
                Speech is limited... you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
                The right to bear arms is taken away from criminals.

                Even life can't be absolute. There are justifiable homicides.

                1. I mean rights that you can't choose to give up. Like, can you sell yourself into slavery. I'm addressing the question of whether the voluntary sexual act that causes the pregnancy can be seen as giving up the right to control one's own body as regards the pregnancy.

                  1. It's an interesting question. Philosophically, you can choose to get rid of your freedom, because you should be free to do so. Hmmm... that's confusing.

                    Think about it this way. If you choose to sell yourself to slavery and then change your mind, your inalienable right to liberty allows for that. Only you can decide for your liberty, that decision can't be transferred to someone else or taken away without your consent.

                    Imagine if someone tried to sell themselves into slavery, wouldn't the imposition of the government to stop it be a violation of the person's rights?

          3. "Said differently, you don't have the right to be kept alive if it requires the use of the labor or property of another person."

            Said differently, you don't have the right to create a person and put them in a position where they are dependent on you, and then terminate them. When you consent to create that life (as is the case in the vast, vast number of cases), you placed them in that point of peril, and it is wrong to then object to the responsibility you created.

            1. 1 year olds?

              1. Sorry, wrong thread.

        2. Done. Why did we invent individual rights? To help us get along with each other. There's no problem with individuals in wombs; they never presented a threat to make trouble for the rest of us, so there's no reason to invent rights for them.

        1. Hey man, long time no talk. Good to see you back. I'm only an occasional lurker these days.

          1. I hear ya. Similar to me, work currently is a lot of waiting for long running tasks to finish, which has lead to my resurgence of spamming my thoughts across the internet.

            Still, good to see you. Hope things are good with ya.

            1. Same to you. This place could use more people like you who are willing to engage in rational debate without resorting immediately to ad hominem.

              1. It's true, I am super great. I enjoy seeing you around though. I save my sanity by leaving for long periods of time, and avoiding arguments with people who are too pissed to interact with some amount of good faith.

    4. Hell, if the government has no right to intervene with any stage of abortion, which is literally the only medical issue where the lines of autonomy are unclear, then the government has no right to intervene on ANY decision you make about your body. None.

      All drugs laws, medical licensing, FDA approvals, EVERYTHING is off the table.

      But we can't have that... thus the ridiculous mental gymnastics of Roe v Wade decision. Had to find abortion and ONLY abortion somewhere.

      1. Hell, if the government has no right to intervene with any stage of abortion, which is literally the only medical issue where the lines of autonomy are unclear, then the government has no right to intervene on ANY decision you make about your body. None.

        Exactly. There's no reason abortion should be the lone exception in that instance. You can't argue "bodily autonomy from the government, but only in this one circumstance" and be taken seriously.

      2. "then the government has no right to intervene on ANY decision you make about your body. None.

        All drugs laws, medical licensing, FDA approvals, EVERYTHING is off the table."

        It has to be remembered. This same group of people, just a few months ago, was arguing that access to healthcare, ability to be present in public, ability to work, was all to be contingent upon you complying with receiving a govt mandated, experimental medicine that based on your risk profile could either be unnecessary or even dangerous for you.

        The same people.

        Ill have the "my body my choice" conversation with other, reasonable people...but these people can rightly go fuck themselves.

        Straight schadenfreude.

      3. Actually they based abortion in large part off the Griswold precedent re birth control. The rationale was that baby-making is fundamental to all human existence, therefore it takes precedence over anything in any law that might contradict it. Drugs were not necessary for human existence, nor was any other health matter except baby-making. So you have a privacy right in baby-making and anything that looks like baby-making, such as homosexual intercourse. You know, the same way vaping looks like smoking, so....

        1. But not prostitution, because that's about money-making, not baby-making.

    5. I've actually argued that I'd be fine with abortion on demand, if the father was off the hook for any child support. I'm all for that compromise.

      Hell, if you have to go on Maury to find out which of the 20 dudes you opened up for during a couple of weekend house parties is the father, you should probably just give the kid up for adoption so they don't emulate your poor future-time orientation and impulse control.

      1. Many of us would accept many compromises. I've seen at least two good ones and had thought of my own less libertarian one. Too bad that isn't the American way.

  35. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/tgif-week-of-the-womb?s=r

    Wait, is America on the extreme end of abortion permissiveness? A pro-life friend of mine this week joked that she would settle for Denmark’s abortion laws here. I was confused for a second—I assumed Europe was more liberal on all of this than we old-fashioned religious Americans? Not so. This is one of those facts that doesn’t come up much. While deep red states like Oklahoma and Texas bar abortion earlier than most European countries, most Americans live under far more permissive abortion laws than Europeans. The European laws seem really sensible to me, and if Democrats want to actually pass a national abortion bill they would be smart to look to countries like Denmark and Italy. A great graphic here:

    1. Yeah. It's an interesting thing. We're in a category of abortion permissiveness closer to North Korea than the EU.

      I fully expect to see a federation of laws like the EU here as well.

    2. Kevin D. Williamson at National Review:

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/how-to-regulate-abortion/

      "So, there will be no Handmaid’s Tale, no cinematic dystopia. The hysterics among us should be reminded that while the Mississippi law at issue in Dobbs prohibits abortion after 15 weeks, in France, the law prohibits it after 14 weeks. If your idea of a right-wing Christo-fascist hellhole is Paris, then you need a psychiatrist, not an abortionist."

    3. A lefty friend of ours was on about the handmaiden's tale junk and how this would ruin the US. I put out there that it's likely we end up with some set of laws like France or other countries in the EU have, in many states. And that some more extreme states will ban, maybe, some extreme states will allow all, and the majority of states will adopt a reasonable set of rules.

      The response was basically "ya right, I WISH we were lucky enough to end up like France"

      Seriously, complete and utter ignorance. But also when enlightened that France has a first trimester only ban she essentially signed up for the position that any restriction at all equates to enslaving women.

  36. Banning Abortion Would Be Bad for Kids

    Ending Roe V Wade would not ban abortion. Learn to journalism.

    1. ENB isn’t even pretending to be a journalist anymore. She’s a left wing propagandist that’s got herself all worked up in a tizzy.

      1. R Mac...see, if I had read ENB arguing against vaccine mandates on the same 'bodily autonomy' grounds during the pandemic, I think I would feel differently about what she writes (she would at least be consistent - I can totally respect consistency if it is principled). ENB is not making the intellectual argument on why a libertarian approach to abortion might actually be better for the country. I don't know what the hell point she is trying to make; it is just the written version of PMS (I know, I know...I made a totally chauvinistic comment, probably needs a trigger warning of some kind).

        At least the interns use facts and figures. With ENB, you get emotions!. 🙂

  37. Blackrock buys Ancestry.com

    https://twitter.com/jakeshieldsajj/status/1522481322668617728
    Now Blackstone will own your DNA

    1. Blackrock and Blackstone are separate companies. Blackstone is the slightly less evil one.

      1. Only very slightly, and they're also both World Economic Forum corporate partners.

  38. Hey Reason, you printed eleventy articles about Roe V Wade before 9am when this leaked to the media, and have not made a whole lot of noise about the Ministry of Truth.

    This is how you do a libertarian critique of the Ministry of Truth.

    1. I can't seem to figure out in a minute how to post the transcript to this video. 3:39 long, though.

      Speaking of disinformation though, I keep wondering what the possibly staged leak and protests re: Roe vs. Wade is trying to distract us from? The only thing I saw that got vanished by this media mash is the story where 90% of republican campaign spam got removed by google, but only 40% of democrat campaign spam. That can't be it: what else did I miss that got vanished by the RvW story sucking all the oxygen out of the news?

      1. The US admitted they are workign with Ukraine, giving them intelligence, that has helped Ukraine kill Russian generals...

        Un-fucking-believable

      2. what the possibly staged leak and protests re: Roe vs. Wade is trying to distract us from?

        Literally everything else. Everything about this regime is such a dumpster fire that perhaps the only play they have left is some old fashioned culture-warring (except not really culture-warring because only conservatives do that).

      3. The DoJ now has an Office of "Environmental Justice."

        Also, people were talking to much about MiniTru.

      4. I think trannies are a strong contender. 2-4 days before this leaked I heard an ad with camel a harry ass say the words women and mothers at least 20 times.
        This is coordinated attempt to limit damage from the perv wing of the party. Not even they are dumb enough to push back against the more mainstream democrats when literal slavery is knocking at the door.

    2. I wonder if Reason Editors feel any shame from getting out-libertarianed by Fox News, of all places.

      1. If it's not about drugs, prostitution, ass sex, Democratic Party narratives and abortion the Reasonistas don't care. Free speech, censorship, warmongering and authoritarianism are high-mind concerns best left to academics.

        1. Only the right kind of ass sex, though. Ass sex with only one dick, or no lady dick doesn't trigger them.

        2. And food trucks. Everybody forgets the food trucks.

          1. And Mexicans, and, for a brief period, ferrets.

          2. Remember when it was privatization of prisons? And pro-?

      2. It’s becoming more common. If you count both Kennedy and Gutfeld (co-hosts Kat Timph & Tyrus) at Fox, Murray, Greenwald, Dave Smith, Taibi, etc. And if you consider anti-war, anti-tech censorship, anti-propaganda, and parent’s rights in schools, Tucker Carlson of all people is gaining. The writers at Reason, all of them, will soon, if not already, not be anywhere near top 10 libertarians in current culture. And losing ground fast.

        Reason is the establishment of libertarianism, which more and more means they’re not really libertarian at all.

        They’re like the kid that was more advanced than all the other kids, but then something happens, like a car accident or concussion on the football field, that stunts their development and leaves them stuck while all the other kids keep developing.

        The world has changed, and the fight for liberty has followed and become more complex, but Reason is still stuck in a world where muh private company isn’t even able to infringe on our rights.

  39. https://twitter.com/45wonyuge/status/1522377664623005696

    I have a friend who lives near Hickory NC, he owns a farm, raising chickens for a major company. He says he’s conflicted: he’s being told to destroy the chickens, no reason given. But he’s not losing money; in fact he’s getting paid almost double to comply.

    1. The chickens refuse to wear masks.

    2. Turns out that those chickens were a bunch of cocks.

    3. And this push to cull chickens will in no way negatively affect our food supply in the coming months, I'm sure.

    4. It's his human right to abort his chickens.

      1. They were likely sired by a drug-addled rooster. It's his civic duty to rid us of those chickens so they don't live a shitty life.

    5. Wow, we've gone from the soft socialism of the New Deal AAA's efforts to convince farmers to shoot their cows and dump their milk in the gutter, to the current hard corporatism where farmers are once again paid more money to wholesale slaughter their livestock.

  40. Okay, all of you heard about the whack-job who attacked Dave Chappelle at his stand-up show, 2 days ago. Random audience member tried to attack him with gun-knife, Dave apparently slugged him, then security dragged him off. Chappelle said "Was that Will Smith?", and continued his show. The knife was an actual serious weapon a replica gun with a pop-out maybe 4 inch blade, more than enough to do some Grievous Bodily Harm.

    BUT, the kicker is, the goofy progressive DA in Los Angeles, where it happened: "DA George Gascon has declined to pursue the case against Isaiah Lee, the man who was arrested over tackling Dave Chappelle on stage." What do you even do, when the government people you elect to protect you, "decline to pursue" the guy who tried to stab you on stage? How does that not give the green light to every crazy out there?

    My wife works in a medical office for "underserved communities," which we all know is a code word for "shithole." Being in NW Florida, this gov't response is not likely to happen. But if it did, how could it not be a call to vigilantism? If the government says "we will not protect you from criminals," how have they not just declared that they don't deserve any authority at all?

    1. The government declared they will not protect people from criminals over the summer of 2020. The people go the message and armed themselves in record numbers.

    2. If you don't absolutely slam people for attacking someone on stage like that, then you run the risk of no longer being able to have live performances in anything but very secure and remote settings. A performer is standing totally exposed to hundreds or maybe thousands of people. If a person really wants to harm them, it is unlikely that any security no matter how good is going to stop them. So, you just can't tolerate anyone running on the stage and doing anything. If they do, you have to absolutely hammer them to deter others from trying it.

      1. Yes. And also, DA Gascon is sending this "you're on your own" message directly to the class of people in Los Angeles that I imagine provide the bulk of the tax base. Hollywood, get on stage, it's open season [if we don't like your politics today].

        1. When you put it that way....

      2. I can just see Julius Caesar, Cassius, and Brutus all open-carrying on stage.

    3. Heard that this morning. A few misdemeanor charges, no felonies. Fucking nuts.

      1. I don't even think he's charged with any misdemeanors yet, just "he's been referred for possible charges". Go figure.

    4. Fucking California. They can't figure out how to not arrest for weed, but they certainly can figure out how to not arrest for attempted murder.

  41. Banning Abortion Would Be Bad for Kids

    Oh my.

    1. the ones who weren't murdered do not want to share.

      1. May the odds be ever in your favor.

  42. "The abortion-inducing drugs mifepristone"

    You mean the horse medicine, right? LOL these people are taking horse medicine!

    1. Horse paste is cool now!

    2. Isn't that Dangerous Disinformation, or did the rules on that change recently?

      1. "It's only Dangerous Disinformation when they say it."

  43. ...and that could be terrible for the children they eventually give birth to.

    That's certainly a take, I guess.

      1. I mean, as sympathetic to the reproductive rights as an anti-abortion former altar boy such as myself can be, that might be the absolute dumbest arguments pro-choicers can make.

        The more reasons they dream up to justify abortion, the worst these people sound. There's a legitimate argument to be made for not forcing a woman to use her body to gestate against her will, but adding this shit on top of it flirts with the eugenics fever dreams of the rabid left.

        1. See my comment just below. Let an ideologically driven pro choice person talk about the benefits of abortion long enough, and something really ugly will fall out of their mouth.

        2. Im definitely in the "safe, legal, rare" camp and have found the modern left especially the pro abortion (not pro choice, IMO) folks to be profoundly dystopian. The videos celebrating going to the abortion clinic. The weird pro-environment talks about population control. The sentiments bordering on eugenics.

          As Diane says below, let them go on long enough and it gets really ugly. Like if you gave someone's old timey racist uncle too many shots of tequila and asked him what he though about black people.

          1. Well said.

        3. Frankly, I think the more that the anti-choice people justify their reason(s) for banning of legal abortions, the worse THEY sound! As I put in another post on another thread, but it bears repeating here: Depriving women and girls of the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies can only backfire--in the worst ways:

          A) Girls and/or women who are desperate to end unwanted pregnancies will once again end up going to these totally untrained back-alley butchers who are totally untrained in the technique of abortiing fetuses, with unsafe, unsanitary equipment, and in unsafe unsanitary facilities, and therefore will be at risk of being sickened, permanently incapacitated by, or even dying of a horrible infection, due to having had an unsafe, illegal abortion.

          B) The welfare rolls will increase, as will family strife, and violent crime, as well.

    1. I wonder about this kind of thinking, it's not particularly rare in this day and age. I still don't know what to call it. It's sort of hedonism, sort of a paganism (not in the religious sense, though that exists as well). I really can't explain it well. It's a culture of Death increasingly, but the specifics are varied.

      1. As a pro-abortion person, (but willing to accept some kind of reasonable limit on the procedure) I find if you sit back let an ideologically driven pro-abortion person talk long enough, they start saying very uncomfortable things.

        1. I'm very pro-life and even I can recognize at least two sides on the pro-abortion side.
          "Abortion is a bad thing, but is a necessary evil." The safe, legal, rare argument.
          "Abortion is a good, in of itself, as it allows us to shed ourselves of the inconveniences we do not choose to take." This is me trying to steelman the more extreme version of the debate.

          The latter is pretty monstrous in its morality once you factor in the fact that the inconvenience is a human life, and it always, always leads to moral atrocity down the road.

          1. For me I'm willing to accept the clump of cells argument at relatively early stages on the gestation graph. But keep moving the needle to the right, and I start to sweat under the collar, and eventually I can confidently say, "Yeah, no, no fucking way."

            I get that there are childless, pink-haired nth-wave feminists waddling about who believe that up to and including the magical trip down the birth canal, abortion is totes ok.

            But most Americans (by my read of polling data) seem to feel about the same way I do.

            1. I want to ask that question to every woman I see posting "my body my choice". To what point do you think it is your body? Until the umbilical cord is cut? Or just until it looks like a baby? But if someone's only statement in support of Roe is "my body my choice" you have to assume until the moment the baby is born. Which is just selfish as all fuck and yet they see the other side as monsters.

              1. Note how emotional women get when they miscarry even at the earliest stages. It's an absolute kick in the head when you get that first ultrasound, see the heart beating and early stages of movement, only for that to suddenly stop. And that often happens because pregnancy is such a delicate process, an early miscarriage is often the result of something going wrong that might have had severe effects down the line if the miscarriage didn't actually take place. But the reaction typically isn't, "well, no big deal, it was just a clump of cells," it was "we lost our baby."

                So again, it comes back to, when exactly does that "clump of cells" become a human being deserving of its own rights?

                1. Yes, when does following become stalking? Complimenting become harassment? Persuading become compelling? When does it become more than "just the tip"? We have to at some point agree to accept that a line must be drawn even if we don't agree on where to draw it.

                  (Also why is "just the tip" ever a form of persuasion. The tip is the one part that shouldn't be in you if you want to avoid pregnancy.)

                  1. When women say so

                    1. So since I'm a woman I get to decide on all of those things. Awesome. 10 days, the point at which you cross a non-public property line, the point at which you can't walk away, the point at which the threat of physical violence to you or someone you love is imminent and real, the moment its pressure is what is compelling the spreading. Hear ye, Hear ye, I declare it so.

          2. "Abortion is a bad thing, but is a necessary evil." The safe, legal, rare argument.

            I'm actually of this camp. Despite the reasoning above, I do have a heart. I feel that abortion has to be accepted in a society that values liberty, and conflicting rights need to be addressed in a non-absolute manner.

            Gestational age is important and I feel personally that aborting a zygote with no real human qualities is much more morally acceptable than killing a fetus with a brain and beating heart. Of course drawing the line between the two extremes is rather difficult.

            Viability seems like a reasonable way for the courts to say that this is the line and as technology advances leaves some room for movement. It's not a great legal ground, but legislatures should be able to draw a line which can be challenged in the courts, and should be based on the science and technology of the day.

            1. That's one of the problems with Roe. They tried to draw that line. We didn't even have ultrasound in the 70s. Viability is moving forward rapidly. 12 weeks is an accepted limit for convenience abortions in most of the civilized world with exceptions for other circumstances. Courts should not be in the business of determining viability.

              1. I never said that courts should determine viability. In fact Roe doesn't specifically. That should be left up to legislatures and ultimately challenged in courts with expert witnesses if they decide to set the standard too far in either direction.

        2. You let any ideologically-driven person talk long enough, they sound stupid. As RAW wrote, convictions make convicts.

        3. I'm a pro-choice person who supports the right of a woman or girl to terminate an unwanted pregnancy through an abortion, but if one sits back and lets a so-called "pro-life" person talk long enough, THEY start saying some rather uncomfortable---and not-nice things.

    2. Honestly ENB needs to let someone else do the abortion stuff. She clearly is way too invested to not have the most retarded left wing takes. She is usually so far away from libertarian on most things, but on abortion she really cant get past her feels on it.

    3. One of the arguments pro-aborts used in favor of Roe was that abortion would result in less child abuse and neglect.

      That didn't happen.

      1. So can you somehow PROVE that if Roe had NOT been laid down for us, that there would now be LESS child abuse and neglect? Please show us your math!

        I say, if everyone in my hometown had adored me more than they did, when I was born (AND given me vast political powers right away), the Ukraine "special military operation" would NOT be happening right now!

  44. https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1404905878092926981

    As in the mid-1960's anyone questioning & insisting on answers is vilified by a united political opposition from the leadership of both parties & the legacy media who serve them. Might we recommend "The Best & The Brightest" by David Halberstam for further study?

  45. "But the Supreme Court (and other federal courts) are still going to have a huge role in determining the parameters of state rules around abortion."

    If Roe gets struck down then abortion is no longer a federal level problem. So what would be the role for the federal judiciary in this?

    1. Crazy lefties still get to harass them. For shits and giggles.

      1. Disrupting an official proceeding?

        1. Hahahahahahahaha!

          No.

  46. There's some hope that if Roe v. Wade is overturned and the legality of abortion is left up to individual states, we could see a kinder, gentler national politics.

    This is the most outrageous assertion yet! Nothing short of the total annihilation of one side or the other would do that. And even then, there's always a new wedge issue someone will invent. Dividing the population is what the elite class does best.

  47. But Twitter may have violated its contract with users...

    Who would have thought that was an enforceable contract.

    1. No one has actually read it.

  48. 'They know that alcoholism, addiction issues, mental health problems or other circumstances will prevent them from adequately nourishing a fetus or protecting it from harm during gestation.' This cannot be correct, as we are informed that women are nearly if not entirely perfect, and all problems are caused by the patriarchy, manspreading, mansplaining, and toxic masculinity. Women are simultaneously incapable of determining their own life choices, and strong, smart, stunning and brave -at any weight. It's a hallmark, bravo or hulu story for the ages, every day.

  49. https://twitter.com/FoxBusiness/status/1522539189874610176

    Baby formula shortage hits 'crisis' level, sparking panic in parents across U.S.

    1. Yet another reason they can't overturn Roe.

    2. Breast milk is free.

  50. High-profile issues like abortion rights, inflation and the war in Ukraine are filling up lawmakers' time.

    WHAT HAPPENED TO COVID??? THERE ARE VARIANTS!

    1. The unelected bureaucrats can still make Covid rules.

  51. Anita Dunn will return as a Senior Advisor

    Hold the Mao.

    1. Proving that Things can always get worse

  52. Canadian Parliament member Arnold Viersen has reintroduced a measure that would require porn producers and distributors...("to verify the age and consent of each person depicted..."

    He's sure some of those "schoolgirls" he's researching are waaaay older than barely legal.

    1. Videos of people having sex while holding photo ID up sounds like it's going to be the next, sad, fetish of our times. Better or worse than cucking? I really don't know. I just don't know anymore.

      1. How will we know if the IDs match with the masks on?

      2. Porn has become way too strange.
        In addition to cuckoldry, there is a shit ton of incest, tranny and cartoon porn. People need to get their shit together.

        1. That’s a whole mother fetish

  53. Was censorship the greatest COVID-related threat to freedom?

    Pretty sure it was the top-down coercion of medical procedures but censorship is probably a close second.

    1. Neither of these are particularly libertarian issues.

      Overturning Roe V Wade on the other hand.

      1. I’m just glad Reason assured us that rogue staff at the Supreme Court leaking early drafts of decisions to hype up an angry mob is nbd.

      2. Is there a non-outcomes based libertarian argument for keeping Roe?

        There is a conservative one, that is precedent, even bad precedent is important to keep and that incremental changes in jurisprudence is important for many reason. Is there a libertarian argument for continuing the existence of a case widely recognized as badly reasoned, that isn't just that they like the outcome? I actually don't know. This is not just rhetorical.

        1. If libertarianism is purely outcome based, then libertarians have no fealty to the constitution or Bill of Rights. They are mere accidents of liberty, but can be swept aside by necessity.

          That feels dangerous to me. Perhaps this is why I'm less chest-thumpy about libertarianism these days than I was in the past.

          1. I would agree. I've always had a conservative streak (small-c) and that has definitely increased over the last few years. I still think libertarian best describes me, and I still see that I'm considered radical in a lot of my legislative outcomes, but the top-level Reason editorial is harder for me to accept.

            I sort of just repeat what Charles Cooke says these days, I guess. I make more boob and wiener jokes.

            1. Your right to be free from searches and seizure, private property, free speech and keep and bear arms did not spring forth, Venus-like from a mysterious clamshell and call itself "Libertarianism". They came from a long tradition that had to grind its way through history and I'm of the mind that it could be important to both preserve and conserve those traditions.

              1. I also mean it in a strong tendency I have towards small changes. My hoped for end-state of government is really anarchistic, minarchistic, anarchocapitalistic, something like that. I argue this on moral grounds where the ability of the individual to make choices is among the most important things in life. I even go so far not just the freedom to make choices, but the requirement to make choices. You cannot offshore your morality and your decision making.

                But, I am not a revolutionary. Even as a young kid I was not. And so it's important to have a directional anarchy, and that we can make calls as we move in that direction about how far is too far in any given case. I also suspect that as people are forced to reckon with each other directly and more more decisions about their own life, that they will get better about it, which may let us become ever more anarchistic over time without as many negatives of a sudden collapse style anarchy.

                But, this is all rambling.

          2. I find as I get older I feel better about tempering principle with practicality. Philosophically I'm still basically an anarchist. But I can understand that any step towards my preferences when it comes to political organization (or lack thereof) must be considered along with its likely effects in the real world we live in today. I care enough about people in general that I can't support a "burn it all down" approach. And I can recognize that some institutions and processes are worth keeping given the realities of the world.

        2. I would agree on this one BUCS. Roe was badly reasoned and poorly decided, even though I generally agree with the outcome.

          I'd be perfectly happy with a full repeal of Roe, for a decision that said something along the lines of;
          "Bodily autonomy is a right that is found in the 9th Amendment of the Constitution. Oh and by the way along those same lines, you should be allowed to take whatever substances you like and decline any medical treatment you don't like. So sayeth the court, of Leo. Party at my house tonight."

          There's probably a reason I'm not a SCOTUS justice.

          1. So you don’t want abortion as a state’s issue?

            I can’t imagine a better issue to be left to the states, which repealing Roe would do. Libertarians can’t even agree on the issue, which tells me that the federal government shouldn’t even consider it.

            1. It's the fundamental role of government to protect our liberty. So if you recognize bodily autonomy as a fundamental right, then you shouldn't leave it up to states to violate it.

        3. If the team I bet on cheats so I win, I ain't complainin'.

  54. Body cam footage worn by a Warren County, Virginia, cop "appears to show that sheriff's deputies lied about the circumstances of a traffic stop in which a 77-year-old man suffered a brain injury and later died..."

    Passive voice, even at Raw?

    1. "sheriff's deputies lied"..... news at 11

  55. don't worry! federal funding for chick transport to abortion-happy states right around the corner.

    1. I bet they call it Mayday.

    2. ^California already planning to do this themselves. They will fly you to their state for an abortion, with tax payer money. Amazing.

      1. if I can think of it, someone already has. one reason I'll never be on shark tank.

  56. https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1522555807778455553

    The White House has opted not to use the Oval Office for press events in part because a teleprompter cannot be permanently placed in the room, according to a new report.

    1. Ha, ha, ha, ha... America is so fucked.

    2. Guess they're afraid Biden will read the prompts on his cue cards.

  57. The Oklahoma Board of Elections says state Rep. Sean Roberts—now running for Oklahoma labor commissioner—can't appear on the ballot as "The Patriot."

    People might mistake him for the Steven Segal movie and not the Mel Gibson movie.

    1. That explains why they're allowing his opponent to run as "Under Siege"

      1. there exists a Code of Honor we adhere to in this place.

        1. Allowing this to go forward would put the whole electoral process On Deadly Ground.

    2. He should use Del Wilkes' entrance music at his campaign events.

  58. Banning Abortion Would Be Bad for Kids

    Opponents of abortion often say "just put the baby up for adoption!" as if carrying that baby for nine or so months beforehand isn't a major endeavor in the best of circumstances and, often, dangerous or damaging to a woman's health. But women aren't the only ones who suffer from forced pregnancies. People who don't want to be pregnant aren't always capable of or willing to provide a healthy gestational environment—and that could be terrible for the children they eventually give birth to.

    This sounds like a very contorted way of describing "undesirable DNA turds in the pool".

    1. And fix your italics tag bug, Reason.

      Observe:

      Test

      Test

      1. I screwed up the formatting in an earlier post and it still ended the italics where I had meant it to end. Strange.

        1. If the tags cross a paragraph break, the italics are aborted in the second trimester.

          1. Reason’s comment section, Reason’s choice.

  59. Mark Esper recounts Trump asking the stunned SecDef if the government could fire missiles into Mexico and then pretend it wasn’t the US who did it in his new memoir

    People will believe anything if it's about their ideological enemy.

  60. A new Florida law would erode students' fundamental right to learn history accurately...

    "Accurately" is no longer the objective phrase you think it is.

    1. Precisely.

        1. Technically true.

  61. "A new Florida law would erode students' fundamental right to learn history accurately," suggest American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida Political Director Kirk Bailey and Communications Strategist Zuri Davis (formerly of Reason).

    Lol, imagining believing that public high schools are where you go to learn anything accurately.

    1. Hmm. Zuri Davis went and worked for the Florida ACLU, huh?

      Hmm.

      1. Sort of like Radley Balko going to work for HuffPo and then the Washington Post.

  62. People who don't want to be pregnant aren't always capable of or willing to provide a healthy gestational environment—and that could be terrible for the children they eventually give birth to.

    Obviously the solution is mandatory universal birth control, with application to the Federal Government for the temporary antidote in order to become pregnant.

    1. I like where your head’s at.

  63. “The Oklahoma Board of Elections says state Rep. Sean Roberts—now running for Oklahoma labor commissioner—can't appear on the ballot as "The Patriot."”

    But if they identify as “The Patriot”, who is Oklahoma to deny their choice?

  64. "Opponents of abortion often say "just put the baby up for adoption!" as if carrying that baby for nine or so months beforehand isn't a major endeavor in the best of circumstances and, often, dangerous or damaging to a woman's health."

    +++++++

    Raising a child to the age of 18 is also a major endeavor in the best of circumstances, and often dangerous or damaging to a woman's health. Let's just move the age allowed for a mother to abort her child to age 18. Or, maybe 26 since they have to allow them to stay on their insurance plan until that age. If it saves just one life...........

    1. It's easier to have the clump of cells vacuumed out before you have to interact with it and feel it moving around than it is to hand it over to someone who wants a baby but can't. How traumatic.

  65. Elizabeth should educate herself. Women were designed via evolution to give birth. Not doing so has physiological and deadly consequences like cancer. Women who are nullaparous (no childbirth) have a higher prevalence of breast, ovarian and uterine cancers. While Elizabeth glamorizes the childless life, considering she is childless, stating childbirthing is dangerous to the woman’s health is fraudulent reporting.

    Why are reproductive cancers more common in nulliparous women?
    Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 May;26(5):416-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.01.007

    ###

    An examination of the health and wellbeing of childless women: A cross-sectional exploratory study in Victoria, Australia

    Results: Childless women in this study reported statistically significant poorer general health, vitality, social functioning and mental health when compared to the adult female population of Australia. With the exception of vegetable consumption, lifestyle behaviours were similar for the childless sample compared to the adult female population in Australia.

    Graham, M.L., Hill, E., Shelley, J.M. et al. An examination of the health and wellbeing of childless women: A cross-sectional exploratory study in Victoria, AustraliaBMC Women's Health 11, 47 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-11-47

    ###

    Childlessness, parental mortality and psychiatric illness: a natural experiment based on in vitro fertility treatment and adoption

    Results: The crude death rate ratio in women who become mothers to a biological child is 0.25 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.39). In other words, childless women experience a fourfold higher rate of death, that is, 4.02 (2.56 to 6.31). The analogous death rate in fathers is approximately halved: 0.51 (0.39 to 0.68) and 0.55 (0.32 to 0.96) associated with having a biological child and an adopted child, respectively.

    Agerbo E, Mortensen PB, Munk-Olsen T Childlessness, parental mortality and psychiatric illness: a natural experiment based on in vitro fertility treatment and adoption J Epidemiol Community Health 2013;67:374-376.

    1. Typo:

      nullaparous —-> nulliparous

    2. How does one go to the bar in Williamsburg when you have a brat to take care of? What about a womyn's mental health?

      1. Ive been to the bars in Williamsburg. Staying home with your spouse and children are far more rewarding and pay off in spades

        1. "Yes, but my important career of suckholing elites journolisming"

      2. If you're one of my friends, you bring them with you. Fun for everybody!

    3. I believe ENB does have a child.

      1. I wonder if that ever makes things awkward.

        1. I don't know. It is why I like to keep arguments abstract because it's very difficult to know enough of the information to make really narrow arguments without being an expert. And while most folks are experts in a few things, most folks here are not in most of the topics discussed.

      2. I'm guessing a turkey baster was involved because I'm pretty sure that her husband doesn't swing that way.

      3. i went on her website bio page:

        “Brown currently lives in Cincinnati, Ohio, with her husband Swin and their two cats, Esme & Gemini.”
        https://elizabethnolanbrown.com/

        She should be encouraging women to have children for health reasons. Follow the science!

        1. Her Instagram has a lot of photos of her and her husband with a baby though. She appears to have a note mentioning when he was born and showing her with him as a newborn. So, I think she does.

          Though, the real question is, what does this matter either way?

    4. Interesting facts. I love seeing arguments for why having kids is good. I feel like culturally we're moving very hard into the direction that they're a burden that infringe on our ability to be our authentic selves, or some shit like that.

      Still, this feels like an argument as to why people should have kids, and not the core question of the choice of whether or not to have kids.

  66. Almost as if the "libertarians" here don't give a shit about actual rights and freedoms and are just as authoritarian as we've been calling them since...well, for a long ass time now.

    1. yeah that's the take away

    2. unfortunately you lefty fuckers have pushed so hard with CRT, telling parents the state knows better than them, and forcing authoritarian lockdowns and mandatory vaccines on them to participate in society, so everyone has had quite enough of the flavor of freedom and civil liberties your ilk has to offer.

      Now enjoy the 6-3 SC for now, until its 7-2, as democrats are going to be further out of power after mid terms and desantis will probably wipe Biden(if he's alive) and Harris has no chance.

      Enjoy the backlash you asked for. You deserve every bit of it.

      1. "...everyone has had quite enough of the flavor of freedom and civil liberties your ilk has to offer."

        Sure Jimbo, that's how 4 of the 5 signers of the SC draft were appointed by presidents American voters rejected at the polls. 2 of them are in seats stolen, one from a twice popularly elected president and the other from a president who won more votes than any other in our history.

        1. That'll be cold comfort to you when your precious dems get their ass handed to them in November. Because NY and CA ran up the popular vote for hillary, you can feel good watching the SC become even more conservative when Biden has no ability to nominate one from 2022-2024 and they lose the WH and senate in 2024.

          But Hillary got more votes! Good for her! Enjoy the coming 7-2 court when Sotomayor's diabetes gets the best of her

          1. AS I SAID, "JIMBOJR," YOU'RE MY TYPE OF GUY, AND CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN (THERE ARE VERY FEW PHILOSOPHICALLY CONSISTENT "LIBERTARIANS" POSTING HERE)! FOR EXAMPLE, YOU PRESENT BRILLIANT "GROWN-UP" ARGUMENTS WITH VERY NECESSARY "NAME-CALLING," AND YOU AND I BOTH Y-U-G-E-L-Y ENJOY WISHING ILL HEALTH AND DEATH ON THOSE EVIL "LIBTARDS," SUCH AS SOTOMAYOR. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK, MAGA, AND DON'T FORGET TO VOTE FOR ME IN 2024!

    3. Because actual rights and freedoms only apply to one of the people involved in the abortion?

  67. I really would like to make a request of folks here during this time.

    Take a second and look for either a Crisis Pregnancy center near you, or other similar organizations. Consider donating your time or your money in some way. We don't know if Roe V. Wade is overturned quite yet. If it is though, it is only returning the abortion argument back to where it belongs. The argument will continue and giving our time, money, and our love is crucial to continue to develop a culture of life. Welfare and government subsidy does not engender that in the same way that going out and individual working with those who need help does.

    1. Funny comment-baiting addition. The other day I googled "Pregnancy Crisis Centers" and the top little Q&A tab from Google was:
      "Are crisis pregnancy centers unethical?"

      With the little blurb saying:
      "Although crisis pregnancy centers enjoy First Amendment rights protections, their propagation of misinformation should be regarded as an ethical violation that undermines women's health."

      1. Google is just evil. Pure evil.

        1. "Don't be evil!"
          *Becomes one of the most evil companies ever*

          I'd like to see Alphabet destroyed. Competition, lawsuits, obsolescence, hostile takeover by Musk, asteroid strike, I don't care how. It's a threat to humanity and freedom.

  68. “(Also, Twitter isn't the government, so it can't violate anyone's First Amendment rights.)”

    So corporations are incapable of violating rights because they aren’t government? Can they murder people then?

    1. How would a corporation murder anyone. Only a person acting as an agent could murder a person and that person would be charged, not the corporition.

  69. Once again Elizabeth Nolan Brown proves she has shit for brains. Roe basically said abortions were permitted until the fetus was viable which with the 50 year old medical technology was according to medical experts (most but not all of them anyway) 24 weeks. While I am no medical expert I am sure the 24 week number has been lowered with fifty years of improvement in medical technology.

    What Dobbs against Jackson Womens Health is about is lowering the 24 weeks till fetus viability to 15 weeks; it has nothing to do with prohibiting abortions, just at what point they are allowed.

    But if the question was framed about what Dobbs against Jackson Womens Health was really about changing the time frame that abortions are allowed then libtards would have nothing to scream about.

  70. Is there an argument more heinous than that it is moral to end another's life because you think their future might not be worth living?

    1. ALL "LIBTARDS" SHOULD BE ABORTED OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB BECAUSE THEY ARE DESTROYING "OUR" COUNTRY. MAGA, HEIL THE GREAT ME, AND HEIL THE GENIUS VLAD!

  71. I look at the list here and don't understand why things wouldn't just go back to the way they were before Roe, rather than all these other speculated changes. We've already been there. It may not have been good, but it wasn't bad in most of the ways listed above. Is there something about Roe that changed things irreversibly, so that now if a state has the laws regarding abortion that it dead then, all these other consequences will follow as well?

  72. "Banning Abortion Would Be Bad for Kids"

    Seriously? You know what's even WORSE?

  73. The only people who say that ending Roe would outlaw abortion are too stupid to be permitted to breed in the first place.

    1. ALL "LIBTARDS" ARE RETARDED SUBHUMANS WHO SHOULDN'T "BREED," AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE ABORTED OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB!

  74. "Some children, families, and medical professionals may suffer grave consequences."

    It seems to me that being killed is a pretty grave consequence as well. But that doesn't appear to matter to Nolan and the "pro-choice" types who, for the past two years, seemed to forget their "my body, my choice" slogan when it came to forcibly injecting victims with an experimental drug that has killed tens of thousands.

    1. Carter, no one was forcibly injected, and the vaccines saved millions of those filled our ICUs and died, mostly during the Delta variant, were overwhelmingly unvaxxed

      1. You gave up the "my body, my choice" when you and the other retards on the left went COVID crazy and couldn't resist controlling people with govt over reach.

        No lay in the bed you took a dump in, and STFU

      2. By that logic, no one was prohiobited from having an abortion.

        They simply went to jail if they had one.

  75. "RETARDS." LAUGHING MY Y-U-G-E ORANGE-DYED ASS OFF! THAT'S HILARIOUS, AND SO VERY TRUE. YOU KNOW, "JIMBOJR," YOU'RE MY KIND OF GUY. WE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS (WE SUCCESSFULLY HIJACKED THIS "LIBERTARIAN" FORUM LONG AGO) NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO WILL CONFRONT LIBERALS WITH NAME-CALLING, USING TERMS SUCH AS "RETARDS" AND "LIBTARDS" WHEN DESCRIBING THEM. WE NEED TO DEHUMANIZE THESE IDIOTS. YOU'RE A VERY SMART GUY. THEN AGAIN, ALL OF MY CULTISTS AND WORSHIPERS ARE BRILLIANT, BUT OF COURSE NOT QUITE AS HIGH IQ AS I, AND MY "GENIUS" BUDDY VLAD, ARE. I BET THAT YOU HAVE MANY COLLEGE DEGREES. SPEAKING OF WHICH, I HAVE SO MANY THAT I CAN'T EVEN COUNT HOW MANY THERE ARE. MAGA, AND I WILL BE BACK AS YOUR PRESIDENT IN 2025!

  76. I've been a fan of Reason for a long time. This is the first article that has compelled me to create an account and leave a comment.

    I disagree with most everything written here. It is, shall I say, for the most part, Unreasonable.

    Roe vs. Wade and abortion is absolutely obsolete in todays day and age, except in the truly rare case of having to save the mother’s life.

    Today there is ZERO excuse for an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy.

    The pill. External condom. Internal condom. IUD. Sponge. Patch. Shot. Diaphragm. Cervical Ring. Implant. Spermicide. Withdrawal. A combination of birth control methods. Fertility trackers for smart phones (men, you may want to use this as well). The 24 hour pill.

    With the exception of the pill, I do not believe these other options existed when SCOTUS created the evil and outdated abortion laws.

    Planned Parenthood are farmers. The women are the fields. The crops are the babies. The abortion is the harvest.

    Women pay Planned Parenthood hundreds to thousands of dollars to rip their own child from their womb.

    Planned Parenthood then turns around and makes multi-millions more by illegally trafficking the bodies and body parts of that woman’s child like they are nothing more than scraps found on a butchers floor – something to be fed to dogs.

    Planned Parenthood is also given over $500 million of tax payer dollars that is then funneled back to politicians on all levels of government … I would call that a kickback. Like insider trading – only worse.

    This needs to be pointed out far and wide.

  77. After watching a few videos on Libs of TikTok maybe it’s a good thing some people are doing their kids oh I mean fetus a favor . I can barley take a few seconds watching these people . Imagine be raised by one of these nuts . Look on the bright side . Less liberals in the world.

    1. EXACTLY, MY FRIEND! WE, AS CONSERVATIVE WHITE REPUBLICANS (THERE ARE VERY FEW PHILOSOPHICALLY CONSISTENT GENUINE "LIBERTARIANS" POSTING HERE ON THIS FORUM), SHOULD ADVOCATE FOR "SELECTIVE" ABORTIONS. IN FACT, WHEN I AM SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT AGAIN IN 2025, THE FIRST THING I WILL DO IS MAKE ABORTION MANDATORY FOR ALL PREGNANT WHITE "LIBTARDS" AND "NON-WHITE" WHORES. I PROMISE YOU!

      1. IF, HOWEVER, AFTER I AM RE-ELECTED (AGAIN--WINK, WINK) YOUR SUPERB PRESIDENT BY A Y-U-G-E-L-Y Y-U-G-E MARGIN IN 2024, I AM NOT ABLE TO MANDATE ABORTIONS FOR ALL PREGNANT "UNDESIRABLE" "LIBTARDS," I'LL SIMPLY ORDER OUR UNITED STATES MILITARY TO SHOOT THEM AND/OR BLOW THEM UP WITH MISSILES. OOPS, I JUST REALIZED THAT I'M RESPONDING TO ONE OF MY OWN POSTS HERE. NO BIG DEAL, THOUGH, BECAUSE I AM STILL A VERY STABLE, AND A VERY GOOD-LOOKING, GENIUS, WHO KNOWS A LOT OF BIG WORDS. OH, AND DON'T FORGET, I LIKE THEM YOUNG, AND I LIKE TO GRAB THEM BY THE PUSSY!

    2. "LESS LIBERALS [AND PHILOSOPHICALLY CONSISTENT TRUE LIBERTARIANS] IN THE WORLD," THE BETTER. ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT, "MIDDLE CLASS WHITE GUY!" I AM Y-U-G-E-L-Y PROUD (AS IS MY BEST BUDDY VLAD, AND ADOLF WOULD BE) TO COUNT YOU AMONG MY LITERALLY COUNTLESS CULTISTS AND WORSHIPERS, AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT "WE" ("OUR" SUPERIOR KIND) WILL BE BACK IN THAT BEAUTIFUL WHITE HOUSE, "THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE," IN 2025!

    3. THE ONLY GOOD "LIBTARD" IS A DEAD ONE. AND WHEN I AM YOUR GREAT PRESIDENT AGAIN IN 2025, I WILL ENSURE THAT THEY ALL ARE ELIMINATED. HEIL ME!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.