Some States Restrict Abortion After Dobbs, Others Rush To Protect Access
Plus: What overturning Roe means for Republicans' future, court halts ban of Juul products, and more...

How states are reacting to Roe v. Wade being overturned. Since last Friday's Supreme Court ruling that upended reproductive freedom in America, states have been moving to either restrict or protect abortion access.
Passing new bans on abortions will take at least a little time. But a number of states had "trigger laws"—bans set to be automatically triggered should Roe v. Wade be overturned—already on the books, banning abortion at around six weeks of pregnancy or entirely banning the procedure except in instances where a woman's life is at risk.
Restricting Abortion Access
Some states' trigger laws took effect as soon as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was handed down last Friday. States with immediately triggered bans include Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah. Abortion clinics in some of these states have already started to suspend operations. Other trigger laws—in Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming—will take effect within 30 days. The one remaining abortion clinic in North Dakota is preparing to move across the border to Minnesota before then.
Some states have passed bans in recent years that courts said they couldn't enforce. This last group may now appeal to be able to enforce these bans—and some already have. Eight hours after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, "a federal judge dissolved a three-year-old block on Ohio's 'heartbeat' anti-abortion law, allowing it to go into effect," reports Cleveland.com. "That means that Ohio women will no longer be allowed to have abortions in the state when fetal cardiac activity is detected. That's around six weeks, or before many women know they are pregnant."
Others states had pre-Roe bans that weren't being enforced but now can. For instance, an 1849 Wisconsin law still on the books says that performing an abortion except to save a woman's life is a felony. Uncertain as to how this old law now applies, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin has for now stopped performing abortions.
In total, 20 states have either already banned abortion at all or most points in pregnancy or are likely to do so soon, according to a Washington Post analysis. Reason's Jacob Sullum has a thorough rundown of existing state laws (including those designed to protect abortion access) here.
Some states with abortion bans are already mobilizing to stop residents from obtaining abortions in other states too. In South Dakota, Republican Gov. Kristi Noem told CBS's Face the Nation that she's urging state lawmakers to keep people from being prescribed abortion pills through remote appointments with out-of-state doctors.
Protecting Abortion Access
As conservative-led states rush to stop abortions, states with pro-choice leaders have been moving to protect abortion access—not just for their own residents but for people traveling from states where abortion is illegal.
In Washington, Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee said his administration will protect the privacy and identities of people who travel from other states to get abortions. "We are not going to allow that data to get back to Texas or Missouri or Idaho," Inslee declared, saying that Washington would become a "sanctuary" for abortion rights. "The governor also plans to direct state police to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement from other states seeking to enforce anti-abortion laws, and said he'll push for legislation to impose similar bans on other police agencies within the state," reports Bloomberg.
Washington state isn't alone in issuing such promises.
Minnesota's Democratic governor, Tim Walz, issued an executive order Saturday declaring that state agencies must "protect people or entities who are providing, assisting, seeking, or obtaining lawful reproductive health care services in Minnesota" and that "no state agency may provide any information or expend or use time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel, or other resources in furtherance of any investigation or proceeding that seeks to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanctions upon a person or entity" for providing or obtaining an abortion or assisting someone in doing so.
Calling the situation "absolutely dystopian," Walz promised to "use all legal authority of this office to decline to extradite people who are charged under other states' laws that criminalize providing, seeking, or obtaining reproductive health care services."
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, has issued an order very similar to the one in Minnesota. And California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed a law to protect people assisting out-of-state travelers in obtaining an abortion in California. "We know that states like Missouri are already targeting women seeking abortions in states like California where abortion remains legal," he announced. "This legislation seeks to protect women and care providers from civil liability imposed by other states, and sends a clear message that California will continue to be a safe haven for all women seeking reproductive health care services in our state."
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is asking Michigan's Supreme Court to immediately take up her lawsuit concerning abortion access in her state. "We need to clarify that under Michigan law, access to abortion is not only legal, but constitutionally protected," the Democrat explained in a statement.
Michigan is a state with an old abortion ban on the books, leaving the matter of abortion's legality in the state now unclear. "With today's U.S. Supreme Court decision, Michigan's extreme 1931 law banning abortion without exceptions for rape or incest and criminalizing doctors and nurses who provide reproductive care is poised to take effect," Whitmer noted.
The Private Sector Takes Action
Government officials aren't the only ones pushing back against new abortion restrictions.
In some places, groups are already challenging new abortion bans in court. For instance, Planned Parenthood of Utah and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have sued to stop a Utah abortion ban that was triggered Friday.
In Florida, where a 15-week abortion ban is set to take effect July 1, a Boynton Beach synagogue has filed a suit arguing that the law violates its members' religious liberty. Separately, a group of Florida health care providers is also suing to stop the ban.
Meanwhile, some private companies are moving to ensure that their employees have access to legal abortions even in states where bans exist. These companies—including such major names as Alaska Airlines, Amazon, Apple, Cigna, Citigroup, Conde Nast, Dick's Sporting Goods, Disney, Lyft, Microsoft, Morgan Chase, and Paypal—have pledged to cover travel costs for employees who have to go out of state for an abortion.
"It is likely only a matter of time before companies face lawsuits from states or anti-abortion campaigners claiming that abortion-related payments violate state bans on facilitating or aiding and abetting abortions," says Reuters. But "for many large companies that fund their own health plans, the federal law regulating employee benefits will provide crucial cover in civil lawsuits over their reimbursement policies, several lawyers and other legal experts said."
Reuters reports that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 has for decades been interpreted "to bar state laws that dictate what health plans can and cannot cover." But it "cannot prevent states from enforcing criminal laws, such as those in several states that make it a crime to aid and abet abortion."
More from Reason on the Dobbs decision:
• Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment
• States Can't Ban Out-of-State Travel To Get Abortions, Writes Kavanaugh
• John Roberts and the Path SCOTUS Did Not Take on Abortion
• Clarence Thomas Calls To 'Reconsider' Gay Marriage, Sodomy Rulings
• Enforcing Abortion Bans Is Much Harder Than Winning in Court
• Get Ready for the Post-Roe Sex Police!
• Outside the Supreme Court, Our First Glimpse of Post-Roe Politics
FREE MINDS
Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) suggests that the GOP is going to get even more authoritarian now that it can no longer use overturning Roe v. Wade to demand conservatives get in line:
This decision will reshape American politics. Bad day for the corporatists and Wall Street crowd who told working class & social conservatives for years to shut up and go along with their policies if they wanted the chance to overturn Roe. That leverage is gone
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) June 24, 2022
FREE MARKETS
Court halts Juul ban. Juul products can still be sold in the U.S.—for now—even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said otherwise last week.
A federal appeals court has issued a temporary hold on enforcing the ban. The pause goes through at least July 12, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia further reviews the case.
"The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider petitioner's forthcoming emergency motion for stay pending court review, and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion," the court declared.
One of authorities' big fears about Juul is that it encourages teens to get hooked on nicotine. But banning Juul won't stop teens from vaping, The Guardian points out. They've already been moving on to new brands.
QUICK HITS
• "Russia targeted the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv with a series of missile attacks Sunday, as leaders of the G7 nations gather in Germany for the first day of their annual summit," reports CNN.
• "The last known experiment at a Department of Veterans Affairs clinic with psychedelic-assisted therapy started in 1963," writes Ernesto Londoño in The New York Times. "Nearly six decades later, a handful of clinicians have brought back psychedelic therapy within the Veterans Affairs health care system."
• Emily Yoffe on the new Title IX regulations:
real banner week for government meddling in personal affairshttps://t.co/0bs8j3ubpb
— Kat Rosenfield (@katrosenfield) June 27, 2022
• A Colorado court was asked to decide who gets frozen embryos in a divorce case.
• Seaweed is a promising food tangled in regulations, suggests Baylen Linnekin.
• "When did perfume stop being about sex?" looks at how perfume marketing has changed.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How states are reacting to Roe v. Wade being overturned.
They're either mandating or wearing Handmaids Tale robes, depending on the state.
I'm earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning $25k only within four weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join.
Check further details by reaching this link..>> https://xurl.es/profitloft
What's the over/under on the first
womanbirthing-person to intentionally get pregnant just so she can get an out of state abortion for tiktok clout?Probably a mad scramble amongst the blue hairs to chuck their pills and condoms and hop a working dick yesterday night.
No kidding. Probably going to rob a sperm bank to get preggers and begin their martyr protocol
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. Immediately whilst I’ve misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into exhausted and fortunately I located this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in (res-15) a function to reap lots immediately thru my home. Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & can benefit greater bucks online going this article.
.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
God, you sound like you are hot in the sack. Single?
Careful. Sue might be looking for a sperm donor so she can have a performative abortion at the outdoor Stateline Clinic.
Excellent call. I must be cautious
Billie Joe Armstrong hilariously declared that he was renouncing his citizenship and moving to the UK. I doubt that drug-addled slack-jaw realizes that abortion on demand doesn't exist there, either, but if taking an L in the culture war is all that's required to get these deviants to leave the country, let's make troonism an official mental illness and start the stampede to exit to Canada (because as we all know, these simps won't actually move to a country where the people are browner than they are).
it would be a massive improvement to the country
Might boost the UK collective IQ, too.
I wish the people who threaten to leave the US would follow through.
We never seem to get as many people threatening to leave as are crashing the borders to get in. An odd dynamic, for such a hell-hole we're supposed to be living in.
That trade, socialist-leaning activist losers out, ambitious hard-working people in, could be a net benefit in many ways.
I’m shocked he isn’t a Brit, what with his totally spot on singing accent
Luckily I've already forced everyone on my compound to wear these robes, so life's been pretty consistent really.
I'll bet they're commando underneath.
LET'S GO AVALANCHE!
Ha! Anything that keeps TBL from that threepeat. GO PENS
Get fucked Florida. Only cold weather states should win at hockey.
All sports, including hockey, should be played outdoors on natural surfaces.
Okay orthopedic surgeon guy.
There really does need to be some sort of mechanism for the NHL to regulate ice quality. St Louis and TB both had shitty ice. Not only does it slow a faster team down, but it helps the worse team, by making it easier to clear the zone without icing the puck.
If your stadium cannot consistently keep the ice surface at a consistent temperature, the team needs to move. Especially when this seems like a tempting way to give your team an unfair advantage.
I’m just glad I can still say that only one team has won 4 cups in the last 25 years.
A pretty random metric, I know, but it’s one where my team comes out on top.
misspelled Nordiques.
Oh don't get me started. I cannot stand the fucking people wearing their Nordiques jerseys. It isn't that I don't mind people who were actually Nordiques fans, but that isn't the people at the Avs games. These are posers with MacKinnon's or Roy's name on their jersey in an attempt to look like they were there, that they heard of them first.
No asshole, Roy was never a fucking Nordique. And you aren't cool by pretending it.
mine was a Sakic. and congrats. better Denver than Tampa lolwtf
That at least was historically accurate. I didn't mind the random one I would see. But this year, everyone in their 30,000 front row seat had a nordiques jersey. I imagine because the Avs were selling them for extra cabbage.
...Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee said his administration will protect the privacy and identities of people who travel from other states to get abortions.
Those abortion tourism and parts dollar signs in his eyes.
How the fuck would his administration even know the identities of people that travel from other states?
How do you “extradite” someone who only came to your state for a day or two?
It doesn't matter whether his claim makes any goddamned sense. All that matter is that he's signaling that he's a good-thinker.
How long until Shout Your Abortion becomes Get Pregnant For Free Vacation?
Paying more for your Amazon product so some harlot can get a free vacation sounds like a fair exchange.
Is he going to stop trucks and trains from carrying goods from the port of Seattle to Idaho? National Divorce?
...some private companies are moving to ensure that their employees have access to legal abortions even in states where bans exist.
Cheaper than maternity leave.
Could this be the metaphorical wall that keeps the hordes of Californian refugees from enriching the cultures of other states?
The long game! Humanity in the Golden State dies off and then they're ripe for Red State conquest.
Texas should ban abortion so that left-wing Californians won't move there anymore and fuck everything up. As good as building a wall.
Maybe. Some progressives might take it as a "hold my beer/merlot/joint" moment and bring the holy crusade to the infidels.
Fuck that. Take your proggy relatives back to the lower 49 from whence they came. Native Californians are very levelheaded.
It's your Midwest profiles who relocated out here littering the cultural landscape
Great parody.
It's absolutely true. Californians are mellow and levelheaded. The fucking proggy transplants and Hindu-Sino socialists from Asia are the problem. And the Hispanics are all pretty centrists which is what keeps the last vestiges of sanity here.
Arizona? Lake Havasu sucks. Phoenix sucks. Sedona sucks. Cardinals suck.. I would gladly trade Arizona for another Nevada on our southern border
California is the state that outlaws foie gras to protect geese, but now wants to pass laws that allow abortions right up to live birth.
Wonderland.
Do you get double virtue points if you travel to California for an abortion and bring a goose rescued from some red (meat) state?
How about going one level deeper and use black-market pregnancy tests to get California to bankroll your travel for a black-market abortion which you use to smuggle black-market geese to California's expensive French restaurants speakeasy style?
funny thing is you may come to California for an abortion but you can't get an abortion if you are not vaccinated. so much for your body your choice.
Pretty sure the Venn diagram of people who will go to Cali for an abortion and people who are vaxed is almost a perfect circle.
It would still be funny to see in California's supreme court: California is denying my Reproductive Rights by forcing me to get vaccinated before I can get an abortion.
I wonder who would win?
Like all devout true-believers, contradiction and cognitive dissonance are not applicable, even in court.
If you think the Suede-Denim Secret Police won't catch you, I have a bridge to sell you
California Über Alles
Yeah, no shit. Keep barefoot and in the office.
Juul products can still be sold in the U.S.—for now—even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said otherwise last week.
Now that abortion is banned the company will have a steady stream of toddlers to market to!!!
fist is on fire this morning
FOLLOW THE MONEY
I'm commenting all the way to the bank.
I KNEW you were on the Reason payroll. How else do you get the Roundup early?
It's an open-secret that Fist is Peter Bagge.
I thought I was Welch or Weigel. One of the W's.
Just be glad no one’s saying you’re part of the B team.
Nah, you're actually funny. That narrows it to Bagge since you've been around longer than Heaton and the Bragges.
And when SCOTUS overturns the FDA ruling on appeal, Liberals will have something else to hate them for.
Yep, total SCOTUS fascism, by preventing progressives from instituting their utopian nanny state.
Russia targeted the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv with a series of missile attacks Sunday, as leaders of the G7 nations gather in Germany for the first day of their annual summit...
You know who else met in Germany while Ukraine was bombed?
Harry and Sally?
Retcon alert! Or maybe not; I don't think I ever saw that movie.
That's tragic.
Africa has several identical conditions ongoing but the Left and Reason (I know, I repeat myself) do not seem to give two shits.
Guess darker skinned folks are less important than ones who are white enough to qualify for employment in a left wing activist group.
Identical except for nukes.
Kids are starving to death in Yemen while US allies block food, but that's different because Putin.
The last known experiment at a Department of Veterans Affairs clinic with psychedelic-assisted therapy started in 1963...
Known.
If you liked MK Ultra, wait until you try MK Ultimate!
A Colorado court was asked to decide who gets frozen embryos in a divorce case.
And before you get any ideas they're too frozen to be cut in half, smart guy.
King Solomon was not available for comment.
Abortion in the -1st trimester.
Global warming will take care of that.
Lots of "Uncle Clarence" over the weekend
A reminder to black people: The democrats will hold you up as a noble, benevolent, victim of oppression and purveyor of all that is good in the world...until you dare have a contradictory opinion or vote anything not straight blue.
Stay on the plantation or face their wrath
The Democrats' racism that is always just below the surface comes out in full force as soon as Clarence Thomas is mentioned.
Well we know he isnt black because he didn't vote for Biden.
Not just Clarence Thomas, any brown person that isn't fully on board with the narrative du jour. You'll never seen so many monkey and raccoon pictures as when a black person disagrees with an Anti-Racist mob on the internet.
Interesting to see the Speaker's reaction to simply being near a brown child.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1541233440212733952
this would absolutely be a scandal if it was an R
White Mike was very clear over the weekend that the left can't be racist such as calling Thomas an N of they are black leftists.
Except most of them were white.
Yeah, they went from "we need more POC's on the SCOTUS" to "Fuck Clarence Thomas" pretty damn quick.
Color is on the inside?
Color is in the eyes of racist Democrats.
Democrats: knowing what's best for negroes since 1836.
Are crackers being given dispensation from blacks to call him Uncle Clarence?
And, oddly enough, he will be the last Supreme Court justice who really remembers Jim Crow.
I've read excerpts from his auto-biography and it's pretty impressive. He really saw some shit. Reminds me a lot of Thomas Sowell's autobiography. I imagine many other people suffered in similar ways, but it is so striking to read it.
Seaweed is a promising food tangled in regulations...
So in this pun the bureaucracy is the Sargasso Sea and the food entrepreneur is your Evinrude.
And Seaweed is the Siren's song to lure you away from meat...
"Russia targeted the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv with a series of missile attacks Sunday, as leaders of the G7 nations gather in Germany for the first day of their annual summit," reports CNN.
Hey remember when Orange Hitler was in the White House and Russia just did whatever it wanted because Putin knew he could always release the PEE TAPE? Good thing Biden is there now. Putin is terrified of Biden.
#LibertariansForBiden
"Putin is terrified of Biden."
Maybe this could be best contrasted with a photo of Putin on a horse vs biden on his bike.
Adults in charge...
Or "off" his bike.
*Kiev
When did perfume stop being about sex?
Uh, hear of a little thing called #MeToo? Today perfume is the odor of empowerment and asexuality.
Ah, the stench of it.
Smells like victory.
I guess the French discovered bathing.
Yeah, someone's not getting the memo.
"Xer...by Calvin Klein.."
I'm not a fan of Josh Hawley, but I don't think you're even close to understand what he's saying.
What’s gone is a wedge issue that created strange bedfellows, such as born-again Christians chowing as their champion a buffoonish billionaire whose entire life has been about wallowing in what they would consider sinful behavior.
What's he was pointing out is that the GOP has a number of single-issue voters who dislike some of the cronyism in the party. Now the party is going to have to be more responsive to what else those voters care about after delivering on the issue.
That said, he's probably wrong. The issue isn't resolved. If the court ends up with a liberal majority any time in the next decade, you'll very quickly see a ton of cases brought in an attempt to get another abortion ruling. And single-issue voters will stick with the party that's passing the state laws they agree with.
The real threat to the GOP isn't some authoritarian crackdown, it's overplaying their hand. A lot of people recognize that Roe was a shitty ruling, but they're also not on board with complete abortion bans that lack basic exceptions. Surgical abortions are more hated than medicinal ones. If GOP laws go too far, they're going to lose support.
“Now the party is going to have to be more responsive to what else those voters care about after delivering on the issue.”
That’s the part that’s not clear at all. Will they demand more, or will they lose interest now that the GOP delivered on their issue. The coyote caught the roadrunner. Charlie Brown kicked the football.
The Democrats will likely gain votes they wouldn’t have had in the midterms.
Come to think of it, I think I’ve answered my own question. Whether religious conservatives remain engaged in the GOP depends on how much the Democrats push back. It’s the aikido/judo principle — the culture war requires two opposing forces to keep going.
You can count on the left to over react in ugly fashion. This won’t move the needle much on votes.
but they're also not on board with complete abortion bans that lack basic exceptions.
From what I read here at Reason, they're not comfortable with the free-wheeling, uber liberal European style restrictions on abortion either. Anything short of shoving an icepick in the skull as the head crowns during birth is a "ban".
Yeah, it's quite notable that the entertainment industry, the press, and academia, full of neomarxist trash, are the ones pushing abortion on demand, as if we should be like China or North Korea.
I really want articles from their extended staff. So far we've had Tucille, whose stance I'm at least think has a point. I'm hoping Slade and Wolfe will also post something as they have previously given differing views on this from the main Reason line of folks.
I actually think the proverbial 'train left the station' regarding RvW over-ruling. There is really no going back to RvW. By the time any case comes back to an uber-lib SCOTUS, there will have been new laws passed in all the states.
This one is over, but for the hysterical shouting.
And the delicious tears.
They do slake my thirst.
A sufficiently active judiciary will have no issue overturning laws across many states.
I think, what will really happen, is that we'll have some heat for awhile, each state will finagle with it's laws for a bit and we'll arrive at some point where people don't really think about it much anymore. It's what probably would have happened if Roe v. Wade hadn't removed the question from legislation.
Plus, we've had a lot of sorting in our country over the last few decades and I really do wonder if that sorting is so complete at this abortion issue that we won't see real political shifts due to Dobbs.
I suspect some of the more restrictive trigger laws will be modified over time. It's easy to pass legislation that will never be enforced but voters will have a say now.
My ears are burning.
What sinful behavior?
There are strawmen everywhere in the Reason writer's rooms today.
Buit they are suitably abused.
Hey, those are straw persons who are entitled to dress as they please, use whatever bathroom makes them feel comfortable, marry other undefined straw persons, and, if they get pregnant, obtain a free straw cluster removal.
As long as they take the vax and wear the damn mask
You dare question ENB's well-demonstrated reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills?
Does she have a decent rack at least?
I had the exact same thought.
Or she’s a left wing propagandist and is going to call as many things Republicans say and do “authoritarian” as possible before the midterms, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with authoritarianism.
Bingo
I'm so proud to have done my part over the past 5 - 6 years to promote this rational and healthy attitude.
All England Club chairman Ian Hewitt explains Wimbledon's banning of Russian, Belarusian players as 'beyond the interests of tennis alone'
"The All England Club's decision meant men's world No. 1 Daniil Medvedev and No. 8 Andrey Rublev, and women's No. 6 Aryna Sabalenka and No. 13 Daria Kasatkina would be prohibited from playing."
Tough luck. If they wanted to play they shouldn't have been born in the country that would eventually cheat Hillary Clinton out of the Presidency.
#LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussianAthletes
But what about Russian trans-womyn tennis players (and swimmers)?
Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) suggests that the GOP is going to get even more authoritarian now that it can no longer use overturning Roe v. Wade to demand conservatives get in line
So Reason is pro-corporatist now?
ENB isn't really a thinker.
That WH dinner with Obama shitting all over Trump is truly hilarious to look back on.
This is 100% due to Obama, Hillary, and RBG. The smug arrogance of a man who rather than any criticism that people might not like what he's selling, esp the massive govt over reach, received nothing but tongue bathings from the press. They all really thought they had things sealed up.
So much so that Obama decided NOT to codify Roe with his super majority, as he said he would. And RBG elected NOT to step down, because after all, Obama's 3rd term was coming in the form of Hillary, a certainty to these people. And Hillary would EASILY do so, while insulting half the country and campaigning in CA instead of I dunno, OH, Mich, Pa...
This is all a result of their hubris. They thought they could talk down to the country, govern top down, and the rubes will get what we tell them and like it. After all, how can they not like us, we have these fancy cocktail parties where rather than having anything resembling a healthy media / govt adversarial relationship, we will rub it in that we are just all in bed with one another, collaborating together, and shitting on our unsophisticated enemies.
They pushed this country so far left, I dont think they realize this is just the beginning of the pendulum swinging back
The mental breakdowns of the hags going from "RBG is my Queen, and look at my neat bobblehead of her," to "That cunt ruined everything," has been fun to watch.
ive seen some cracks forming on her legacy. Some lefties blaming her for this (appropriately so). Interesting that Ive seen that clip of her talking about people kneeling during the anthem after Kaep controversy, and her saying she essentially disagreed with that sentiment and we should appreciate the country.
Wondering if the extreme left is looking to shit on her legacy. Which im fine with they can eat their own
Yep. When the people actually speak it is the end of Democracy! as we (they) know it.
Yea, it's fun.
But they are by no means done yet.
Get ready for hell.
Democrats Republicans already walking back DoJ prosecutions for trump and others.
SCHIFF: Well, I think it’s a very difficult decision, but I don’t think it’s a difficult – that is, to prosecute. It’s not a difficult decision to investigate when there’s evidence before you. And I think the worst-case scenario is not that Donald Trump runs and wins, but that he runs and loses and they overturn the election. Because there’s no deterrent, because there’s no effort to push back and to hold people accountable.
There has also been a call by multiple members under J6 committee scrutiny and accusations to release the full transcripts of the material presented the last 4 hearings. With claims of selective edits and incorrect representations of testimony.
If j6 is solely about finding the truth, why is this information still not released? This includes the totality of the videos from the riots.
But we all know the abuses of the J6 committee are not valid. That they are a means to investigate and abuse the minority party at the federal level. You see this with their selective releases an accusations.
Of course some here continue to defend this as a fact finding mission despite the committee refusal to release all of the material.
President Joe Biden apparently unwittingly financed his son’s participation in an escort ring tied to Russia, records from a copy of Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop show.
Hunter Biden spent over $30,000 on escorts, many of whom were linked to ".ru" Russian email addresses and worked with an “exclusive model agency" called UberGFE during a 3 1/2 month period between November 2018 and March 2019.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/hunter-biden-russian-escorts-joe-payments
So more evidence so far than Trump Russia.
ultimate irony will be a Hunter pee-tape
He's too fucked up to locate it, but I'm sure it will show up.
Since 2017, I've been operating under the assumption that some prominent Democrat actually does have a pee tape out there. Accusing opponents of what they themselves are doing has always been their M.O.
Of all the thing I could care about, who Hunter Biden is sticking his dick into is very far down on my list. And if you're talking about him funding Russia, somehow, Trump opened hotels in Russia, and I didn't give a shit about that, either.
The thesis behind the Trump Pee tape is not about him banging hookers but leveraging the tape as blackmail. The same would have been true with his family members. The same would be true with Hunter.
Remember, biden has sent the FBI after people to find his daughters diary. You dont think he would do things to protect his son as well?
The thesis behind the Trump Pee tape is not about him banging hookers but leveraging the tape as blackmail.
Which was bullshit because why should we care about what the fuck kind of kinky shit a billionaire does with hookers. He has nothing to lose if that information gets out-especially since people were explicitly talking about it. Likewise, why should we care about what Hunter is paying hookers to do? It's a mutual contract and as long as both sides consent, it's all fine with me. There's nothing blackmail worthy in it, in either case. And it's in the news that Hunter is drugged up and has hired hookers, so what possible blackmail leverage could there be? The cat is out of the bag.
I simply can't care about what mutually consensual sex acts a president, or his son, is doing.
Beyond that, like...there's shit on MY computer I wouldn't want made public. The mere existence of what MIGHT be blackmail material is completely pointless. Show me evidence that there's some kind of blackmail happening or being attempted, or get the fuck out. It's not illegal to have done something embarrassing.
Youre missing the entire intent behind blackmail.
Nobody is talking about crimes here. But information which can be leveraged.
Is that "crime" in a universal, legal sense? Or "crime" in a woke-justice, biased offender class sense?
What information is there to be leveraged? That he went through a slew of Russian prostitutes? Good for them, I'm sure the ladies got paid well. I thought we were libertarians here, I'm completely down with prostitution. We just need to remind him to buy American.
It's different when Dad financed them, and Dad's party was trying to smear the opposition for exactly that.
It makes them look hypocritical and foolish.
You don't have to be anti-prostitution to note the hypocrisy.
We as libertarians aren't the ones being threatened with leverage.
Not everyone thinks the way you do. If they did blackmail wouldn't exist. It does.
Where are you struggling here?
Biden has sent the doj and fbi over a fucking diary. It doesn't matter what you would do. Stop struggling with this.
Not everyone thinks the way you do. If they did blackmail wouldn't exist.
You're still not defining the way this leverage works, you're just implying it somehow exists. What's the leverage? "If you don't do what we want, we'll tell the world your son hired prostitutes." But we already know he does that! The world fucking knows this?
It'd be like threatening to tell my neighbors that my dog poops on their driveway. They know already, they've seen it happen countless times. I clean it up when I catch it.
Where's the blackmail leverage to reveal a non-secret?
You understood the issue a few posts down...
It is the same reason the information is asked for when obtaining a security clearance. They are seeking all information that can be a source of leverage.
I also don't care what Ashley writes in her diary buy Joe has no qualms about using government resources to go after it.
I don't care about who Hunter sticks his dick into. What I do care about is that he's a notorious crackhead who makes terrible decisions and manipulates everyone around him- like junkies so often do. You can see it in the text messages he sends to his father.
Continuously giving your junkie kid gobs of money every time he cries is terrible judgement. It's also enabling the behavior and the addictions. Brandon gives him cash, Hunter does something stupid with it. It's an endless cycle.
He's a gaping vulnerability to the administration. How far are they willing to go to cover for him or rescue him from whatever fucked up junkie situation he finds himself in? And how are they preventing him from finding himself in fucked up situations so far, and how much is that costing me as a taxpayer? Because they either have to have him on total lockdown right now or Hunter Biden has his own fixer team who's running taxpayer funded clean-up on his bullshit. Is one dime of taxpayer money going toward keeping Hunter Biden out of trouble?
That's not even including his using his father's name and position in his shady business dealings.
I think the solution was they put him up in a mansion in malibu with all his expenses paid and full security.
very worthwhile expense to the govt. And a perfect example for the left. "Fuck up your life, be a druggie, an absolute useless non contributing clown, and govt will take care of you!"
Am I also paying for his hookers and crack, or is that what the "art" money is for?
He's a gaping vulnerability to the administration. How far are they willing to go to cover for him or rescue him from whatever fucked up junkie situation he finds himself in?
Right. And that sort of shit is worth focusing on, if he's creating legal issues that Biden is trading legal favors to cover up. That's an actual story, or looking into whatever deal Biden made to get him on the board at Burisma.
Hunter goes on a three week binge with Russian escorts? That's NOT a story. It's an implication, trying imply something sensational when it's not something we should care about. Moralizing over Hunter doing undesirable things is a bad look. Focus on whether he's doing anything corrupt, not banging Russian chicks for money.
The story is salacious, I agree. But, I think it all should be looked into, just to verify the identity of the hookers and/or purveyors to make sure they're actually hookers and actually voluntarily providing their services, and also to make sure he doesn't own anyone any money or favors or anything else.
That's the problem with having a drug addict so closely associated with the White House. Literally ANYTHING he does could end up being, at best, a scandal, and at worst, a serious national security issue.
If we had videos of Trump Jr. snorting coke off of Ukranian hookers for a week straight, I'd call that a non-issue. I'm going to apply the same standard to Hunter Biden. There's plenty of other concerns we might have with Hunter, but who he's paying money to spend time with is not my concern.
, if he's creating legal issues that Biden is trading legal favors to cover up.
Yes. The leverage discussed above. What the fuck.
Do not say "unwittingly".
They shared a bank acct.
They used the same PHONE NUMBER...which takes some doing.
President Joe Biden apparently
unwittinglywitlessly financed his son’s participation in an escort ring tied to Russia, records from a copy of Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop show.Hey Peanuts this is your daily reminder the Biden economy is the strongest ever so you can safely ignore any wingnut.com stories claiming his approval rating is low, especially with respect to economic issues.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
Calls for investigations into the 2020 elections continue.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/2020-election-investigations-and-lawsuits-not-slowing-down-some-are-just
I am seeing some rumblings on the internet that some politicians, like AOC and Jena Griswold, want to impeach some of SCOTUS because of this Roe v Wade business. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/27/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-supreme-court-justices-impeach-kavanaugh-gorsuch-thomas
Any chance this is going to go anywhere?
Sounds like political suicide. Nobody but the rabid left will think that's a smart plan.
Which means it might happen, or at least, proceedings might be drawn up.
No way that goes anywhere. As HorseConch says, it'd be political suicide and has little support. On top of that, Republicans may be driven to respond in kind in 2023 (but we can all count on McConnell being a spineless coward).
More importantly, it's baseless. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both said something to the effect of "Roe is established precedent and we will treat it was such" or "The rules of stare decisis apply." Among the rules regarding precedent and stare decisis are that decisions can be reconsidered when appropriate, especially Constitutional decisions where, unlike statutes, if the Court gets it wrong, there is not an easy fix.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh may have been misleading in that their comments may have given legal-illiterates like AOC the wrong impression, but there was nothing false in what they said.
"their comments may have given legal-illiterates like AOC the wrong impression"
AOC probably had a hard time with a non-standard coffee order. I highly doubt she has the mental capacity to understand stare decisis
As long as she understands "shake that moneymaker"
And "keep you mouth shut".
Or full
I'm at Disneyland and am annoyed this place isn't more sexualized for straights the way it is for the other team
Well, to be fair, congress has a right to impeach judges and many conservatives have been calling for Congress to take that duty back up to slow down court activism.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to be an untouchable authority over the lives of 330,000,000 people, it's supposed to be subject to checks and balances. I think if the Democrats are the ones to re-institute the long-gone tradition of Congress impeaching justices, that will be a delicious (and welcome) irony.
Griswold's the CO secretary of state--there isn't shit she can do about it anyway.
"Russia targeted the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv with a series of missile attacks Sunday, as leaders of the G7 nations gather in Germany for the first day of their annual summit," reports CNN.
The adults are back in charge after the G7 was shown mocking Putin per leaked video.
At least the proggies are easier to identify in public now. The I Stand With Ukraine attire is the new mask or BLM shirt.
Our downtown more "hip" area you can see a clear transition from having American flags on the porches, to Ukraine flags (or more commonly yard signs). +/- actual pride flag or BLM flag. Never an American flag.
I wonder if they realize that pride flags would get them beat up in Ukraine.
or thrown off a roof in browner/blacker countries
Maybe in March or April. I think Ukraine is now a distraction for the progs
Which is funny because Russia is doing better than Europe after this war thing.
When the winter hits, the EU will remove all sanctions to avoid freezing to death.
Serves them right.
Russian ruble bounced back up to a 5 year high, and they are making money hand over fist on oil right now. To boot, they will enjoy Germany and other "green" obsessed countries coming back groveling for oil when things get grim.
But a group at the G7 no one cares about made some mean girls comments about him, so they clearly got the last laugh.
Putin is an asshole, but damn he is making them look like incompetent fools
Putin lucked out because they really are incompetent fools. No effort on his part was necessary.
The West probably has the worst political class in its entire history right now. And that's saying something when you're comparing against the idiots that started WW1.
*Kiev
I love the framing that states will ban abortion for most of pregnancy. For non-mother's safety reasons, how in the fuck are the first 4.5 months not long enough to decide whether or not a birthing person will keep the clump of cells?
It's at least as hard as remembering that getting drunk and fucking your room mate's brother might plant an illegal alien in your belly.
Just a week or two ago Reason was telling us about the remarkably stable consensus on unrestricted abortion in the US.
Now they're fretting that half the country will outlaw abortion.
What happened, Reason?
haha, burn
"In Washington, Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee said his administration will protect the privacy and identities of people who travel from other states to get abortions. "We are not going to allow that data to get back to Texas or Missouri or Idaho," Inslee declared, saying that Washington would become a "sanctuary" for abortion rights."
Which is why conservative states should do the same with guns. Do not share the data with feds or anybody else.
As someone once said, "I think we've woken a sleeping tiger".
We had a decent compromise worked out. Fifteen weeks, plus exceptions. But the single-issue Republicans could not abide that. Mike ponders why evangelical Christians supported a billionaire buffoon philanderer. This is the answer: Single issue voters. They would have voted for Satan if he had promised to nominate pro-life justices.
So the Single Issue Party got their way. What now for them? Will they go home satisfied that they won? Hah! The culture war has just started. In a more ideal world we would eventually get to another compromise, and perhaps another SCOTUS ruling more firmly grounded. But we're going to see all-or-nothing states instead.
SCOTUS did rule that the nothing states can't ban travel for abortions. So will that be the next battlefield?
I say this as a pro-lifer myself. I just don't believe that politics or laws is the answer. It takes a change of culture, and culture war does not change culture. It just makes people hate each other. Abortion has been on the decline due to birth control, among other reasons. So let's promote that. Promote safe sex. Promote responsibility. Abstinence classes in high school is NOT the answer. Okay, I thought that once decades ago, but it's stupid as we're talking about teenagers. Doesn't mean we give away free birth control, but it does mean we need to get rid of this stupid puritanism we've been stuck in for the past four hundred years.
You want to get rid of abortion? Promote birth control, promote responsibility, promote respect. Let people buy the pill over the counter. Stop stigmatizing sex. But you're not going to solve anything by sending out hordes of policemen to arrest doctors and desperate women.
"We had a decent compromise worked out. Fifteen weeks, plus exceptions."
The SCOTUS case was about a ban at 15 weeks, so no, we did not have a "compromise". Pro-abortion activists would not hear of it. And the "plus exceptions" thing basically removed all restrictions.
"So the Single Issue Party got their way. What now for them? Will they go home satisfied that they won? Hah! The culture war has just started. In a more ideal world we would eventually get to another compromise"
Again, the compromise we "had" was the cause of the fucking SCOTUS case that ended Roe. So, apparently, we did not have a compromise after all.
Perhaps talk to those compromising pro-abortion folks about it.
The SCOTUS case was about a ban at 15 weeks, so no, we did not have a "compromise". Pro-abortion activists would not hear of it.
https://reason.com/2022/06/26/john-roberts-and-the-path-scotus-did-not-take-on-abortion/
Roberts' partial concurrence argues that the majority violated "a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint" by going further than was necessary to resolve the case. He notes that Mississippi initially said the Court could uphold its law without completely renouncing the right to abortion identified in Roe and upheld in Casey. That position is reflected in the way the state framed the main question for the Court when it sought review of the 5th Circuit decision rejecting the 15-week ban: "whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional."
After the Court agreed to hear the case, however, Mississippi broadened its argument, urging the justices to hold that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion at all. "The Court now rewards that gambit," Roberts writes, "noting three times that the parties presented 'no half-measures' and argued that 'we must either reaffirm or overrule Roe and Casey.'" As Roberts sees it, the Court should have stuck with the question as originally presented. "If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case," he says, "then it is necessary not to decide more."
It was the Mississippi team that pulled a bait and switch.
Try reading alibis decision. He addressed these points.
Alitos*
He doesn't address the bait-and-switch tactics.
Roberts PERFECTED bait-and-switch. Citing him on the issue is kinda funny.
What about the Mississippi team's bait-and-switch?
The point remains that Alito addressed that issue. Alito specifically states that all parties and amicus brief filers rejected Roberts' approach. Alito argues, however accurately or misleadingly, that no interested party or amicus brief argued for the Roberts solution (to simply rule on the Miss. law and not specifically overturn or affirm Roe and Casey in any broader sense). This is an issue in all types of litigation (seems somewhat correlative of the Defensen and State's analysis of whether or not to seek jury instructions on a lesser included offense in a criminal trial). Alito says both sides asked for all or nothing and got what they asked for. So, this side pulled a "bait and switch" is not really responsive. Argue that Alito misrepresents the position of the appealing party/amici or that even if he accurately represents their position that Roberts' opinion still makes sense. Otherwise, you are essentially conceding Alito's argument. For example, it seems logical that any party simply asking to affirm precedent should not have automatically consented to a broader ruling than the specific subject of the litigation; that's asinine. But did these particular appellants go beyond that and play right into the hands of the appellee's and conservative justices?
What is the bait-and-switch again? That in their oral arguments they called for an overturning of Roe v. Wade rather than requesting the definition of a new balancing test that allowed for 15 weeks?
Originally, they claimed to want only the legal authority to ban abortion after 15 weeks. But then, after the case was accepted for review, they demanded a total reversal of Roe.
They did not demand it.
And yet alito says why he went for the dull overturn. There are already cases of laws at less than 15 weeks so a narrow ruling would continue sending it back.
Again. Read the fucking opinion. He discusses his reasoning. He didn't rely on a bait and switch.
They demanded that the only reasonable means to allow it was an outright removal of Roe v. Wade rather than the institution of another balancing act.
That's not really a bait and switch though. Mississippi passed a law. It was flagged as unconstitutional. Mississippi made the argument that their law was not unconstitutional on the grounds that Roe V. Wade itself was entirely unconstitutional rather than arguing that Roe and Casey allow for creation of further balancing tests.
I'm not really certain what the argument is here, other than that you think Mississippi should have made a narrower argument in court.
He literally addresses why continually coming back to vague limits is an issue. What the fuck jeff?
From what I understand, like in the ACA case where he landed on the penaltax, Roberts offered a resolution neither side asked or argued for in order to kick the can a few inches down the road.
Though, interestingly, neither side agreed with him on that. Both the majority and dissent didn't really consider this a meaningful possibility at all with Alito discussing in depth why it was inappropriate for the Court to continue to have its hand in this.
I've heard people of good faith argue that Roberts's stance is closer to a Burkean conservativism. Basically, the minimum move necessary to resolve the issue at hand. Though there are also good faith objections to that, in so far as the consequences of continuing to have the federal court involved. I think it's not an unreasonable point from Roberts and is consistent with his very institutional view of things.
Brandybuck's bigoted progressive libertine thoughts almost never fail to be hilariously stupid and ignorant of reality.
"We had a decent compromise worked out."
No...we didnt. Most states and democrats think 15 weeks is LITERALLY HANDMAIDS TALE!!!
And Reason labeled states enacting 15-week bans as red (bad) rather than blue (moderate), even though as Roberts pointed out, a 15-week ban allows about the same exercise of freedom of choice as a 23-week ban.
There were already laws crafted at 12 weeks. The Roberts compromise just kept the federal courts involved. Try thinking through your assertions. Or read Altos decision which addressed roberts arguments.
Fifteen weeks, plus exceptions.
That's literally what the Mississippi law at issue was about.
https://reason.com/2022/06/27/some-states-restrict-abortion-after-dobbs-others-rush-to-protect-access/?comments=true#comment-9566553
Um, which single issue party was that? Do you understand what Dobbs was about?
And among the things you want to promote, how about some ideas more fundamental, like reality (say, the odds of actual pregnancy) and personal responsibility for actions?
It takes a change of culture, and culture war does not change culture.
The last 40 years puts this statement to lie.
shit in the last 5 years we went from trannies being an unfortunate mentally ill person to brave heroes that we all should turn the world upside down for.
100% percent culture war changing culture
Well, I suppose.
On one hand, you have a bunch of people who say that recognizing rights of transgender individuals is a broadening of liberty, and that you're a bigot if you don't agree.
On the other hand, you have a bunch of people who say that you should be afraid of transgender people as rapists/pedophiles, and/or you should pity them as mentally ill.
So I suppose advocating for the liberty of others is a "culture war", since respect for liberty after all is a cultural value. It goes too far to declare everyone a bigot who doesn't agree, of course.
But the reactionary crowd, what are they actually arguing in favor of? What is their vision for how to treat transgender individuals?
"recognizing rights of transgender individuals"
What rights are at stake here? T's have every right on this earth that I do and I respect that.
"you should pity them as mentally ill"
That part is at least true. They suffer from a delusion and gender dysphoria, which sucks. Its a mental health condition. I feel for people suffering from multiple personality (or D.I.D) as well. It sucks. But me pretending they are really 5 different people doesn't help anyone.
"But the reactionary crowd, what are they actually arguing in favor of? What is their vision for how to treat transgender individuals?"
That they get the same rights as you and me. Nothing more.
First, I would hope that you would speak up against those who would categorize transgender individuals as rapists and pedophiles. That is not fair and not right.
That part is at least true. They suffer from a delusion and gender dysphoria, which sucks. Its a mental health condition. I feel for people suffering from multiple personality (or D.I.D) as well. It sucks. But me pretending they are really 5 different people doesn't help anyone.
Okay, let's consider two cases:
1. A transgender individual is mentally ill, but refuses to seek treatment.
2. A transgender individual is not really mentally ill.
From a practical point of view, these two cases have the same functional effect. That person will be walking around presenting him/herself as the opposite gender. So if this person comes to you and says "please refer to me according to my new gender", what will you do?
1. Say "Screw you, I will use the power of the state to force you to use the restroom that I deem correct for you" (the confrontational approach)
2. Say "No, I won't participate in your delusion, you are obviously mentally ill, here let me refer to you a counselor" (the patronizing approach)
3. Say "Well, it makes me a little bit uncomfortable, I don't REALLY think you are the gender that you say you are, but out of respect I'll try to accommodate your request" (the humble approach)
4. Say "Absolutely! In fact I'm going to go on social media and tell the world about you and shame and cancel everyone who disagrees with your brave choice!" (the leftwing choice)
Which do you choose? Or is there another option?
"transgender individuals as rapists and pedophiles. That is not fair and not right."
A good portion of men who identify as transgender individuals do so for the purposes of sexual kinks.
3. Say "Well, it makes me a little bit uncomfortable, I don't REALLY think you are the gender that you say you are, but out of respect I'll try to accommodate your request" (the humble approach)
Acquiescing to #3 is how we got to #4. The left doesn't deserve any accommodation whatsoever.
So I'll put you down for #1 then
Got to tell children "no," and nip delusions in the bud.
So if this person comes to you and says "please refer to me according to my new gender", what will you do?
Say 'No'. It's a complete sentence.
It is neither confrontational nor accepting. As usual, your responses are coupled with an array of explanations that you seem to think makes the exchange more or less civil. It doesn't. The fact is, a person can be whoever they choose to be and I am free to participate or not in whatever level I feel comfortable. The problem, as always, is some people feel it is MY responsibility to make them feel comfortable, even if it makes me uncomfortable to do so.
Stop asking me to make you feel good about yourself. Unless I am your friend and I do it naturally, go get your self boost from people who want to give it to you of their own free will. Not for fear of being cancelled by some overzealous LBGTQXYZ harpy.
"I don't REALLY think the voices in your head are transmissions from an alien race, but out of respect I'll try to accommodate your request."
The Emperor's New Clothes keeps getting retold for a reason. The emperor's nudity was not harming anyone. But even a child can tell you that accommodating delusions out of fear of offense is still wrong.
#3
You should have given those options without trying to add a tag telling what you thought each approach was. It would have led to a better argument as the question of 2 v. 3 are both fully within libertarianism and get at deeper questions at how to care for one another.
Adding the tag doesn't make the option any less or more libertarian.
But it inputs your moral bias. Unless your comment is that suggesting others seek help is unlibertarian which I would say means you have an almost strawman view of libertarian thinking.
He relies almost exclusively on strawman, such as claims that every T is a pedophile when nobody is saying that.
Stop being disingenuous. You know as well as I do that most every time the transgender issue comes up, someone inevitably asks BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN AND THE GIRLS IN THE BATHROOM? HOW WILL THEY FEEL SAFE WITH A MAN IN THERE? The clear implication is that trans-women who go to the ladies' restroom are somehow a threat to the "real" women there.
"The clear implication is that trans-women who go to the ladies' restroom are somehow a threat to the "real" women there."
Well many times when this has happened, the "real women" in there are uncomfortable with cock/balls in there and they freak out.
So what is it? Is "their truth" bullshit, or are they bigots for feeling threatened?
If they do feel threatened, are the rights of the trans person so swing their dick around the girls locker room superior to the rights of women not wanting it in their locker room?
As a follow-up, this goes into that weird thing I was trying to do on Saturday but never resolved between us.
Your argumentation would improve if you sliced your statements more narrowly. So, for example here, choices 2, 3, and 4, all fit within a libertarian political framework. Possibly cancelling and shaming don't fit in a libertarian/classical liberal moral framework, but politically they all would in libertopia.
As I said above, you also added tags to your choices, clearly implying you wanted people to choose option 3. But option 2 sits squarely within a libertarian moral framework as well. So does 3. They differ on the actual facts on the matter and how you view them. This is a different question than one of libertarianism. We can see this by slotting in different facts.
In the mental illness arena, let's say someone is having a severe psychotic episode and demanding they be recognized as Napoleon. Number 2 could be entirely reasonable, and probably is better than just ignoring them to their suffering.
On the opposite side, you someone who likes IPAs, clearly a mental illness but I think it's more reasonable to respect that rather than fight much about it. More a question of prudence I suppose.
Cutting your rhetorical questions tighter, so only one real question is being asked, helps avoid these issues.
I appreciate your advice. Yes I do editorialize in some of the questions that I ask, perhaps too much. But also note that I didn't specifically ask which is the more libertarian option. Only which is the option that a person might choose, libertarian or not.
When did being referred to by a specific pronoun become a human right?
No right ever requires another person's action - that would be called 'slavery'
Or is it that you really do think there is some thing called 'trans rights' and so these people have special rights the rest of us do not?
It's not a human right. It is an act of courtesy.
You are free to tell your transgender friends to fuck off. It wouldn't be very courteous though.
“I would hope that you would speak up against those who would…. “
Fuck you. Stop telling people what to think just to signal your own virtue.
You are the problem here, far more than the trannies or the people who don’t respect them to your liking.
Pretentious asshole.
2. A transgender individual is not really mentally ill.
Denying biological reality is the very definition of mental illness.
sex =/= gender
If you have a psychological disorder
2 + 2 = 5
And if sex is not gender then define gender as requiring a belief in attributes associated by sex chromosomes.
More clarity.
Why does gender reaffirming surgery require the implementation of surgery to achieve a physical outlook determined by sex chromosomes?
Why does gender transition therapy require the use of drugs to alter hormone levels to a level associated with sex chromosomes?
See how nonsensical your argument is?
A person who gets gender reaffirming surgery (I'm surprised you actually used that phrase) has the same inherent biology. Still the same chromosomes and same endogenous hormone levels. What changes is the image that corresponds to the person's gender identity. Because in this world, when it comes to physical appearance, one is judged not by one's chromosomes or hormones, one is judged by one's body.
Let me put it this way. Most people would like to think of themselves as, if not extremely handsome/pretty, at least decently good-looking. In fact it can be bad for one's psychological health to have a deeply internalized belief that one is ugly, because it can lead to feelings of unworthiness and shame and eventual depression. Now suppose you have a giant mole on the tip of your nose. It is ugly and unsightly and impossible to disguise. Others might try to be polite to you, but honestly they can't help but stare. The mole on your nose is incongruent with your self-image as a reasonably handsome man. So you resort to surgery to have the mole removed. Your inherent biological processes that produced the mole are still there. The mole may grow back at some point. But now your physical appearance is in much greater harmony with one's self-idealization.
Sure, if you're mentally ill, so it's no surprise you subscribe to that notion.
So, then, what is the gene responsible for men wearing neckties? Or for women wearing skirts?
Since when does someone have the right to have the government or business pay for their cosmetic surgery?
Wait until every child is forced to eat ass for health education requirements
That is a key component of collectivistjeff's utopia
Yes, under an LED projected rainbow. The kiddies all line up and are assigned a tranny's greasy asshole with the instructions from their teacher being to really not be afraid to get in there.
It is fun watching lesbians and feminists being attacked for not sucking trans dick.
"See ladies...you cannot charm this cobra.."
God, I love it when they're forced to pick an interest group over another
If you let people buy the pill over the counter, it's a lot harder to force insurance to cover it.
I always wonder when I visit every side of these pro-life/pro-abortion debates, when I wind up asking myself....
why does a baby have to die in the process? Never get an answer...at all.
I guess it's easier when to digress to some time frame. 15 weeks....one second.....after the baby is born.....
Take heart. Some (federalists) States will still allow killing a baby, and probably allow traveling to do so. The death toll will continue...
We had a decent compromise worked out - and then you go blame the conservatives.
The conservatives didn't push for on demand up to birth, bubbie.
But once the left made it clear that that is what they wanted, it emboldened the extreme conservatives.
This is your self-own. You did this to yourselves.
You are a living embodiment of the 'biker put stick in own spokes' meme.
Lol. No one will be “sending out hordes of policemen to arrest…..”
What a drama queen.
"Michigan is a state with an old abortion ban on the books, leaving the matter of abortion's legality in the state now unclear. "With today's U.S. Supreme Court decision, Michigan's extreme 1931 law banning abortion without exceptions for rape or incest and criminalizing doctors and nurses who provide reproductive care is poised to take effect," Whitmer noted."
So they had NINETY ONE YEARS to overturn the law and did not?
Seems like it was not much of a big deal to them.
thats one more reason why all laws should have to expire or be updated every decade
Yes. Even better, put a cap on the number of laws, and words in the legal code.
"Meanwhile, some private companies are moving to ensure that their employees have access to legal abortions even in states where bans exist. These companies—including such major names as Alaska Airlines, Amazon, Apple, Cigna, Citigroup, Conde Nast, Dick's Sporting Goods, Disney, Lyft, Microsoft, Morgan Chase, and Paypal—have pledged to cover travel costs for employees who have to go out of state for an abortion."
...which is what shareholder lawsuits are there to deal with...
As Fist said above, the costs of maternity leave far outstrips the costs of just murdering the baby. So, it's probably a shareholder win.
Yeah, but will they demand receipts to prove that the expenditure was warranted? Otherwise, the incentive for fraud is pretty big.
Lol. Man, I can’t wait until a trannie at one of these companies claims a need to travel for an abortion and wants to be reimbursed. It would demonstrate a serious mental delusion or, preferably, a sense of humor.
Given that reproduction is the opposite of abortion, how many people are stupid (or blindly partisan) enough to hear "reproductive rights" and not flinch?
Admittedly, that rhetoric does a better job of obscuring the actual demand for fucking whenever and however they want with no undesired consequences.
reproductive rights
It's newspeak.
Strawman. Plenty of undesired consequences of fucking are not within the purview of Roe or pro choice advocacy. STI's, becoming pregnant, other health issues, and all kinds of other petty and fucked up shit that can come for being inside other humans and they way they may behave thereafter. There is one specific consequence that pro choice advocates do believe they have a right to not have imposed upon them: delivering a baby. That's it. And you can't argue that that particular issue is uniquely female, even if you don't particularly give a fuck or agree with pro choice takes on what that means. Just fucking stick to arguments why Roe is shit, why a fetus has a right to be born, etc. There is no need to completely strawman the other side. We get it, you are a personal responsibility fanatic. Don't blame you. Personal responsibility is fucking lacking and people suck. But not everyone seeking an abortion is a fucking philandering whore expecting "no undesired consequences", and even if they were, fuck off, you are missing the mark on abortion. Either the unborn baby has a right to be born that supersedes the Mother's right to an abortion or it doesn't. The rest of this bullshit is just noise.
Fair points
Retarded. STDs aren't reproductive health any more than a UTI is. If the argument that anything that affects body parts used in the process of reproduction are reproductive health opens up the term to pretty much half of everything.
Ffs, I don't think most people would even consider ED a reproductive issue. Circumcission definitely isn't.
RH relates to the process far more than the parts. Either facilitation of or prevention of. Should not apply to breast implants or STDs unless that STD could prevent reproduction.
The irony in his argument is one can be held liable for knowingly spreading an STD. Just like knowingly ending a second life in abortion.
Brutal assessment
Std's aren't covered under health? Do you *hear* yourself?
Nope. If fetuses randomly and magically appeared then we might have a simple(?) argument between the bodily rights view and the unborn as people view. Except for about 1% of pregnancies, women actively participated in a desired activity with full knowledge of the potential for an undesired outcome.
Can I get drunk and raid my credit limit to lose it all at the casino, and expect to get bailed out since I might have to work overtime for 9 months? Can I indulge in extreme BASE jumping and expect a magical cure instead of 9 months of surgery, rehab, and pain after I crash?
Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) suggests that the GOP is going to get even more authoritarian
The subsequent quote from him indicates nothing of the kind.
Do you think ENB reads beyond what her Leftist boos tweet about a topic?
ENB imagined a R to be saying something way worse than what they said?
Color me unsurprised, esp as she likely cant really think straight post roe.
To a core of modern liberals, any policy or action that inhibits their vision of authoritarian utopia is, well, authoritarian. Not sure if they are using Alinsky-style tactics or are just stupid.
Authoritarian mask mandate bans! Literally hitler! School districts are not allowed to run firing squads! Freedom of association!
I'll never forget the screeching vilification of DeSantis for NOT ALLOWING fascist control over floridians from little stalinists in the cities and counties.
he's the fascist? Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
I think she really could have dissected that further. There are some interesting questions as to what a populist coalition looks like and where it goes politically. Just calling it flatly authoritarian is probably not that helpful.
Though, I do think it probably is a sort of vaguely socially conservative/fiscally liberal coalition best I can tell.
"Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) suggests that the GOP is going to get even more authoritarian"
The phrase is "more populist" and involves demanding DC devolve its power.
I am telling you this because you're a Democrat and do not have a clue what anybody who is not identical to you thinks.
What's your sense of it? Actually, do you have recommended readings of this? I haven't seen a whole lot of power devolution, but I would like to see that. I tend to be pretty skeptical of populist movements, but I'm willing to be hopeful.
Federalist principles allow for populism as power is enacted on small subsets with an individual right to leave if against your morals. Centralization of power at the federal or global level does not allow for differences in belief.
"Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) suggests that the GOP is going to get even more authoritarian"
That is not at all what he was saying.
"Bad day for the corporatists and Wall Street crowd who told working class & social conservatives for years to shut up and go along with their policies if they wanted the chance to overturn Roe. That leverage is gone."
How you got "GOP is going to become more authoritarian" out of that is beyond me.
She follows Lefties on Twitter almost exclusively and will buy into whatever they think.
Because she's a Libertarian.
she has been letting the mask slip a lot lately with her takes. She is pretty indistinguishable from a lefty at this point.
Come on! Acting as a champion for hookers makes ENB a true libertarian.
I think associating working class and social conservativism with authoritarianism. Which, eh, there's probably something to that from the libertarian standpoint as social conservatism as a political movement tends to involve enforcement of social norms through government action.
The real answer for me is I don't know what the populist movement currently is. Coming from Josh Hawley in particular, I don't know because he is actually a self-promoter type trying to ride the wave. I kind of get the sense that JD Vance is somewhat closer to an authentic populist type. Though, obviously, he's also gotten more involved with self-promotional stuff as he's involved with politics. I still think he has some more intellectual and honest core about it though.
Long way of saying I don't like Josh Hawley, but have some openness to listening to JD Vance at least.
I think the populist movement is more or less what it's always been, and continues to be, throughout the world: opposition to elites and their -isms. The details do differ, however, depending on what stands out about elitism at the particular time in the particular part of the world. In some cases it's pro-freedom, other cases not so much.
For instance, opposition to medical elitism seems to be a good thing in that it resists what the medical monopoly is trying to impose. (Abortion is on net orthogonal to that issue, depending on whether the medical elites are seen as promoting or standing in the way of abortions.) Opposition to elitism in international affairs seems to be a good thing too.
Elites often side with minority interests, so populists commonly oppose those. Sometimes that's anti-liberty, sometimes pro-liberty, sometimes mixed or neutral.
It was Maddox and Lilie 40+ years ago who produced a little bit of honest confusion in libertarian circles that tended to conflate populist with authoritarian tendencies in the USA. Not really anybody's fault. I don't think our editor is a victim of that, she's just concern-trolling.
"Court halts Juul ban. Juul products can still be sold in the U.S.—for now—even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said otherwise last week."
Damn these uppity courts! How dare they defy the will of the people! And by people we mean authoritarian politicians and bureaucrats who know what is best for everyone.
Well, the courts are illegitimate now, so no one has to listen to them.
Why do I feel like the US is coming to a Martin Luther vs the pope moment? How do we avoid the zealots who are choosing sides and infallible authorities, and want to wage holy war?
Realize that the left is already waging holy war, and digure out if you want to submit or fight back.
This sucks. I have a big shipment coming in from Mexico scheduled and those guys are not the sort of supplier you can delay paying if you know what I mean.
"Supreme Court ruling that upended reproductive freedom in America . . . "
A new personal best for ENB.
As anyone capable of reading English knows, the issue was simply sent to the state legislatures. You know, democracy, voting, all that jazz.
Just for the record, women are still free to reproduce.
Letting people vote is a Danger To Our Democracy.
And, for the record, abortion is the opposite of reproduction.
What they really mean is "care-free fucking".
Sadly, I think stretch marks, scars and vag damage are probably as important or more so than having to raise a baby.
Sorry to hear about your hatred toward women Mongrel.
No doubt they need your and Earth-based's guiding hand to rise from their primitive and selfish ways.
Kat Williams disagrees.
Sounds good to me Earth. You like anxiety and guilt with yours... or you just don't partake?
Nope, I like intelligence and humor, and enough maturity to recognize the seriousness of fucking--and the expectation that despite intentions and actions, things could get complicated.
Just how I try to live all of my life, raised by parents who taught me that I had to support myself and accept responsibility for my actions.
Long to be ruled, the illegitimate GOP packed court took away an individual right established as an unenumerated right under the 9th amendment and put it under government control
Now do all the other unenumerated 9th amendment rights. I'm waiting.
Privacy, including contraceptives, Schall practices between adults, gay marriage, and interracial marriage which somehow Thomas forgot to mention in his attack on due process cases.
You don't know what "unenumerated" or "right" actually mean, do you?
Yes, I do. Clearly you don't or you'd make your point.
Joe Asshole, slinging bullshit and nothing else!
Eat shit and die, Asshole.
So how is something that was almost always illegal and societally frowned upon before Roe, "unenumerated"?
Fucking clown.
Lawyer friend and liberal political activist I know informs me that rights are what the government protects/grants and no such thing as natural or inalienable rights exist in reality.
Can you show us where they do exist in Nature?
You can't even show where they exist in the Constitution, fuckwad.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
Eat shit and die, Joe Asshole.
You've missed quite a few, keep going.
"Long to be ruled, the illegitimate GOP packed court took away an individual right established as an unenumerated right under the 9th amendment and put it under government control"
The stupidity and ahistoricity of this position is mindblowing.
Abortion was almost always illegal before Roe v. Wade. It was an unenumerated right exactly nowhere, and frequently the opposite.
You could argue that even the right to own slaves has a stronger case of being an unenumerated right than abortion because there's more precedent.
That's false and the American Historical Association which is the oldest and largest organization of historians in America made that clear in the friend of the court briefing they filed. Alito cherry picked among periods to justify his radical religious beliefs which he has now imposed on the country, which doesn't share those beliefs.
More lies from the psychopathic liar, Joe Asshole!
Fuck off and die, Asshole.
Give the example that they're using then, Joey. I dare you.
Even that pack of DNC tools have to admit the obvious at the opening of their brief:
"The common law did not regulate abortion in early pregnancy. Indeed, the common law did not even recognize abortion as occurring at that stage."
https://www.historians.org/news-and-advocacy/aha-advocacy/aha-amicus-curiae-brief-in-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-(september-2021)
Because they didn't have a way for of detecting pregnancy. No peeing on sticks. You can't abort what you don't even know is there. What a fucking farce.
"Newly accessible historical evidence further refutes
any claim that, from the adoption of the Constitution
through 1868, our nation had a settled view on the
criminality of abortion."
"Newly accessible historical evidence" is an obvious way of saying that they were inventing it right fucking then upon Democrat request. The fact that almost every state had actual laws, still sitting in state archives, against abortion, demonstrates that these clowns are dancing around the truth.
Ahistorical claptrap by useful tools, and you know it.
This reminds me of Michael Bellesiles' desperate attempt to prove that gun ownership wasn't taken very seriously in the colonial era, using shit he completely made up out of whole cloth, and for the same purpose--to advance a left-wing agenda using the sheen of history as a shield.
The AHA is the largest and oldest organization of historians in the US dummy.
What happened to the AHA is exactly what happened to the Scouts, the ACLU, Disney and Harvard. You lefties infiltrated the institution, killed it, gutted it and now wear it like a skin suit while demanding it's former respect.
Nice cherry pick Mother. Here's the link for anyone interested where the AHA brief over and over again with dates and evidence shows abortion before quickening - stirring in the womb - was common and prosecutable until mid 19th century after a crusade and thus explaining Alito's fixation on 1868 in attempt to deny the facts.
https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Historians-Amicus-Brief.pdf
The entire argument of course is irrelevant as the except to those who want to move us back to the times when slavery was a controversial subject.
Cherrypick? I quoted the preamble, you devious fuck.
There's no actual evidence for abortion before "the quickening" in that manifesto. Just a pile of implication and supposition wrapped up in a load of inference. The very definition of historical revisionism.
They even admit as much:
"Indeed, the common law did not even recognize abortion as occurring at that stage"
A cherry pick is an incomplete out of context quote you twit. If you continue reading you will see an explanation as I represented above reiterated, emphasized, and underscored. Alito misrepresented the past, as if we GAF above all other things what those who thought slavery was controversial think on a subject.
RvW did not use the 9th as the basis for the "right" to abortion.
“GOP packed court….”
Lol. You get dumber every day, joe.
Has any Reason author produced an article discussing Dobbs positively as a matter of jurisprudence? I think there is a lot to like in what we've seen from the court and the Dobbs decision, even if you ultimately want abortion until the age of 10, if you have any inclination towards a consistent judicial philosophy.
This type of reasoning is what ultimately will lead us to ending Qualified Immunity as well. I don't know the timeframe, but as we have a court that refuses to create new legal standards, and pulls back previously decided legal standards, then that will eventually include other legal fictions like Qualified Immunity.
It's about time teachers and bureaucrats get sued
"Has any Reason author produced an article discussing Dobbs positively as a matter of jurisprudence?"
The law professors over at Volokh have, but I don't know if they count as "Reason".
But they don't breed true.
"California Returns Prime Beachfront to Black Heirs After Land Was Taken in 1924 From L.A. Couple"
[...]
"Nearly a century after their beach resort was wrongfully taken from two Black business owners, Willa and Charles Bruce, the California governor signed legislation that will enable Los Angeles County to return the beachfront property to their descendants.
[...]
"The Bruces purchased the property in 1912 and established a popular resort serving Black residents that was a fixture in the community. The Bruces endured years of racist harassment, however, and Manhattan Beach city officials ultimately seized their property through eminent domain in 1924, saying they needed it for a park..."
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/california-returns-prime-beachfront-to-black-heirs/
CA! The blind squirrel of states!
Interesting. I don't know what "blind squirrel" refers to, but as far as California things go this seems less offensive than most to me. I wish they'd generalize that to more eminent domain cases, but honestly I don't know much about how California uses it or how bad it normally is.
I'm assuming he means the state doing the right thing and returning it is the nut that the blind squirrel occasionally finds.
That seems reasonable. I also thought maybe it was something like "as unpredictable as a blind squirrel."
It's a fun image though. It's a euphemism I've never heard before.
"The governor also plans to direct state police to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement from other states seeking to enforce anti-abortion laws, and said he'll push for legislation to impose similar bans on other police agencies within the state," reports Bloomberg.
This is hilarious, dumb and chockablock with unintended consequences.
In other news, what happened to that 15,000 person caravan that was heading to the U.S. southern border? I guess the star chamber hearings and not finding the invisible abortion clause in the constitution drove the caravan off the front page (by front page, I mean Fox News).
Sounds like there are much more direct effects on the caravan than what is going on in D.C.:
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/migrant-caravan-in-southern-mexico-demands-transportation-to-border/
Do they demand abortions, too? I know that vacations in Mexico can lead to some "unanticipated" pregnancies.
In Florida, where a 15-week abortion ban is set to take effect July 1, a Boynton Beach synagogue has filed a suit arguing that the law violates its members' religious liberty. Separately, a group of Florida health care providers is also suing to stop the ban.
Abortion laws in Portugal were liberalized on April 10, 2007, allowing the procedure to be performed on-demand if a woman's pregnancy has not exceeded its tenth week.[1] There is a three-day waiting period for abortions.[2] President Aníbal Cavaco Silva ratified the law allowing abortion, recommending nevertheless that measures should be taken to ensure abortion is the last resort.[3] Despite the liberalization of the laws, as of a 2011 survey, many doctors were refusing to perform abortions – which they are allowed to do under a conscientious objection clause.[4] Abortions at later stages are allowed for specific reasons, such as risk to woman's health reasons, rape and other sexual crimes, or fetal malformation; with restrictions increasing gradually at 12, 16 and 24 weeks.[5]
Abortion in Germany is legal up to 12 weeks of pregnancy under the condition of mandatory counseling and is permitted later in pregnancy in cases that the pregnancy poses an important danger to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. In the case that the abortion is not because of rape and therefore illegal after 12 weeks, the woman needs to receive counseling, called Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung ("pregnancy-conflict counseling"), at least three days prior to the abortion and must take place at a state-approved centre, which afterwards gives the applicant a Beratungsschein ("certificate of counseling"). Abortions that do not meet these conditions are punishable.
Doctors provide medication to cause the abortion, and observe to ensure there are no negative reactions to the medication.
Abortion in Sweden was first legislated by the Abortion Act of 1938.[3] This stated that an abortion could be legally performed in Sweden upon medical, humanitarian, or eugenical grounds. That is, if the pregnancy constituted a serious threat to the woman's life, if she had been impregnated by rape, or if there was a considerable chance that any serious condition might be inherited by her child, she could request an abortion. The law was later augmented in 1946 to include socio-medical grounds and again in 1963 to include the risk of serious fetal damage. A committee investigated whether these conditions were met in each individual case and, as a result of this prolonged process, abortion was often not granted until the middle of the second trimester. As such, a new law was created in 1974, stating that the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman until the end of the 18th week.[3]
So the point here, is that wow, a lot of European countries sure have 12-15 week "abortion bans".
Yes, they do.
First, though, recognize that the Mississippi law was literally the camel's nose under the tent. They used that law as the vehicle to get Roe overturned completely. They never intended for 15 weeks to be their final position.
https://mississippitoday.org/2022/06/24/what-does-abortion-look-like-in-mississippi-now/
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion, Mississippi’s 2007 trigger law looks set to take effect. The law permits abortions only when the mother’s life is at risk or when the pregnancy resulted from a rape that has been reported to law enforcement.
I'm wondering if this offers an opportunity to see how remarkably stable the consensus is on abortion once returned to The People for this right which does not exist in the constitution? It's frustrating I know, but the Roe decision itself (referencing NPR's favorite progressive Jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes) specifically stated that a woman's bodily autonomy was "not unlimited".
As Reason has repeatedly crowed within its pages, most Americans support limits to abortion-- they just write in the reverse and leave out the limits part.
What are the limits this remarkably stable consensus is willing to accept?
Based on the same unenumerated right to privacy, and as Thomas has pledged, contraception, sex acts between adults, gay marriage and - unmentioned by Thomas for some unknown reason - marriage between different races may soon be returned to the states to outlaw or not as they see fit.
No doubt Diane wishes for all those rights not mentioned in the constitution to be matters
to be allowed or not based on majority will.
It's pretty well understood that he didn't mention Loving because it was largely decided on Equal Protections rather than Substantive Due Process grounds. Thomas's concurrence was decrying Substantive Due Process and so the fact that the three mentioned were based in Substantive Due Process, while Loving only mentioned it but was firmly rooted in Equal Protections language. So, there you go.
Thomas is maybe the most consistent thinker on the court, and has been known for being so over a long career. It's worthwhile to understand that before you just presume that everything is power politics.
No doubt Diane wishes for all those rights not mentioned in the constitution to be matters
to be allowed or not based on majority will.
Let's enumerate some of those. I have a right to not have your comments in front of my eyeballs. And yet here we are...
You do understand that unenumerated rights are not unlimited, right?
So, like "common sense" gun control?
"So the point here, is that wow, a lot of European countries sure have 12-15 week "abortion bans".
The US and Canada were pretty much the only two democracies that allowed for unregulated abortion right up to birth.
Everywhere else recognized the consequences.
The fact that most Americans never knew this demonstrates the level of control the Democrats have over the American press.
The US has never had unregulated abortion right up to birth. Even Roe permitted states to ban those.
There was a moment fairly recently where I would have agreed with you on that. And then... ALL OF A SUDDEN!
"All of a sudden" what? Did a state recently legalize elective abortion up until the moment of birth?
a big part of the outrage is still that most ignorant lefties think first trimester restrictions are unique to America and we are horrible for even considering them. Some of them are learning for the first time their socialist paradises in europe aren't quite the utopia they thought they were
As if Mississippi will hold at 15 weeks and not outlaw all abortions- I'll take that bet.
All of the examples quoted above have restrictions that begin only at the 12th week, i.e., approximately the end of the first trimester.
Good job reading.
To paraphrase somebody, the liberals are really, really as mad “today” as the were “yesterday. “
The COTUS needs to comport to feelings, don’t ya’ know.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) suggests that the GOP is going to get even more authoritarian
"This decision will reshape American politics. Bad day for the corporatists and Wall Street crowd who told working class & social conservatives for years to shut up and go along with their policies if they wanted the chance to overturn Roe. That leverage is gone"
How ENB?
How the fuck is pointing out that corporatists and Wall Street don't have leverage over the proles anymore, "authoritarian"?
This is why everyone thinks you're an idiot.
I have to admit this was one of her dumbest takes.
This is one of those times, and there are many, where a longer comment or thought would have been better rather than a quip.
It's part of the daily links though, they're done quickly.
it was an AOC level of dumb. This is one of those where I dont know whats worse. Being disingenuous enough to push this knowing its not true at all, or being dumb enough that your twitter bubble convinced you its true. The good ol Malicious vs Stupid debate.
Not a good look
I think it's closer to a Rorschach test of how one reacts when they read working-class and social conservatism.
I wonder is she has special skills, or at least connections among the sex pros, that are useful during Reason board meetings.
I think what he said should scare all conservatives. Wall Street and corporatists joining the left a la the unions would be the end of the Republican Party. I guess it may have the unintended consequence of pushing the union folk to the right though.
Where have you been the last decade?
Wall Street and corporatists joined the left around 2012 and the working class abandoned it.
We're now in a world where the aristocracy and haute bourgeoisie sing The Internationale as they oppress the proletariat.
2008. Also the time Campaign Finance no longer was a problem, because Obama got 3x as much as McCain
Josh Harley is BAD, mmkay? Anything he says is bad because Josh Harley, Handmaids, Cheeto Hitler, etc
Josh Harley is super fucking rad, actually. Every time I see him riding through town on his tricked out hog I begin to dream of becoming a biker myself... but the dream always fades as I return to my life on the farm.
Josh Hawley is more mixed. I'm not super fond of him and he's clearly a showboater and a self-promoter. It's not clear to me yet just how much of his stated beliefs are pure performance though. I just don't know, I get the sense it's not all performance.
>> states have been moving to either restrict or protect abortion access.
love when I get to use feature not bug.
Post Dobbs CBS News/YouGov poll: Biden Disapproval hits new high
Biden Job Approval (-19)
Approve 40%
Disapprove 59%
https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1541076953620512769
CBS News/YouGov poll -- Top five issues:
1. Inflation - 82%
2. Economy - 80%
3. Crime - 58%
4. Gun policy - 57%
5. Immigration - 45%
Bottom five:
6. Abortion - 42%
7. Russia/Ukraine - 38%
8. Climate Change - 38%
9. Covid - 37%
10. Investigating Jan 6, 2021 - 33%
https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1541083323614773251
wow even immigration beating out those bottom 5 which essentially constitute the lefts entire political platform. Ouch. And J6 pulling up the caboose. No one gives a fuck but the people putting on the trial.
Its going to be a bloodbath in november.
They'll never let November happen.
Zack Weissmueller is discovering what happens when you vote for an "enfeebled President".
Just more proof that The People do not know what is important or best for them, and why elites should have more authority.
And, if you notice, the priorities of elites vs common people are perfectly opposed in the top five and bottom five issue lists.
they have tried every gaslighting trick to distract people on the economy and inflation and its just making people angry. Stop pissing on our legs and telling us its rain
If anything, I'd say that the economy and monetary policy is too elite driven. We have a very regulated economy and I think that exacerbates a lot of problems.
40% approve still amazes me
CBS News/YouGov polls are always Democrat friendly so you can imagine that those are best case for the Dems, which is even more horrible for them.
Someone explain to me how disapproval in constantly hitting new highs but hasn't dropped below 39%?
The right being as dumb and sensational as the left is why I'm hanging out with libertarians.
You mean approval hasn't, right? Disapproval is 59% in the CBS poll.
Rudy Giuliani physically attacked by abortion fancier in New York.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/26/rudy-giuliani-attacked-inside-staten-island-shoprite/
I did watch the video and attack seems to be overselling.
Yeah. I think we also need to not oversell what violence is.
But he is looking at the business end of 80. And while he has wandered off the reservation lately he did a very good job after 9/11.
That was battery. Straight up
Our country has normalized violence based on political viewpoint. That normalization is the Leper's Bell of our individual liberty.
Yup. Speech is violence (on the left). And violence is speech (by the left).
Now I understand why those early posters quit their jobs at Shoprite to make so much money online.
Amen to that revelation
The blue checks at The Hill decide that they're nationalizing socialists.
Why we must nationalize Big Oil
All they need is a targeted demographic group to dehumanize and use to incite violent societal cleansing.
They've been using evangelicals (and occasionally Catholics) for that for the last 25 years, but it never took off outside the clerisy.
Everytime oil prices get high, this tired bullshit comes up again.
They KNOW they can't run the oil industry more efficiently and provide lower prices. It's 100% just a pretense to get their Stalinism in place.
Says the guy who expects to be on the short list to be put in charge of the nationalized oil industry. And what the fuck are "national thought leaders"? You can't get more Orwellian that this guy.
It would be delicious, if he were to get his wish, when Biden put Hunter in charge of the oil industry because of his extensive experience as an industry consultant and Becker ended up on the train to a 'work camp' on the North Slope.
Hawley quote reads more like a threat to the Country Club (R) set
That's exactly what it was, hence Authoritarian.
Colorado pregnancy center burned in mostly peaceful fashion by abortion fanatics
And, as far as I can tell, 100% ignored by the Denver Post.
Hmm. I know exactly where that is.
The Bee weighs in:
Dems Pause January 6 Hearings To Call For Insurrection
Bee, or NYT & WaPo?
this is always why its so good. Its either hard to tell if it was in NyT, or it ends up there a couple weeks later.
Not the Bee:
BREAKING: Congresswoman @AOC has arrived in front of the Supreme Court and is chanting that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade is “illegitimate”
https://twitter.com/DrewHLive/status/1540359953914937349
hey there are just calling for ending the filibuster to pack the court, and also calling the court illegitimate so they can purposefully break whatever laws they want. nothing to see here
bikini?
And gag, er, face mask?
She is the type to defeat the male gaze and thusly wills her body to assume a pear shape
A few random thoughts.
Am I the only one bothered by semantics here? "A Constitutional right to abortion" implies that it is a right that was granted by the document, that was then suddenly taken away by evil conservatives wearing black.
Except government doesn't grant rights. It can protect rights or violate rights, but it isn't god or nature. It is nothing more than men who get away with initiating force. That's it.
As a libertarian I support negative rights, as in the right to do what you want as long as you don't harm others. I oppose positive rights which put an obligation on others. So is abortion a positive right or a negative right? Guess that depends on who you ask.
No, you are not alone. I just try not to talk about it too much because the word "rights" is so abused now it's tiring to fight it. But, I agree.
You're making a very Natural Law style argument though, which I think is central to our founding principles, but also isn't that popular these days among the public.
Libertarians support liberty. That means conservatives hate us for supporting personal liberty while progressives hate us for supporting economic liberty. Everyone wants liberty for me, but not thee.
I still think the Movement Conservatives, or whatever you'd call it, the Fusionists maybe, have a strong personal liberty streak in it. It's complicated though. I admit to not having a strong enough background on Progressive history to really comment, though they do seem to come from a sort of Transcendental style understanding of Freedom as a liberation from one's means.
And then we see certain bizarre takes from libertarian types that end up being awfully focused on controlling how people do things and view things. It's messy though. I don't know.
"The Conservative Sensibility" by George Will was a good book. I listened to it while driving. Took forever. It is packed full of history. The progressive administrative state and the conservative push back. Very informative. And long. I learned a lot.
Not based on what they say on this site. They support Trump and right wing religious bullshit.
Don't confuse loudmouth conservatives for libertarians.
I don't. This board is made up of the former, not the latter.
Another sarc friend here!
Says a loudmouth conservative.
Don't confuse fifty-centing DNC shillbots like Joe for libertarians.
Yes. If anything the last 3 years of covid proved it was that the left supported personal liberty. What the actual fuck. Same with taxation and gun control.
Please show off your logic skills with that red hat quote and your conclusion!
I want everyone to see how retarded you are!
Neither God or nature has ever instituted rights so that principle is a bad joke. Rights are created by social agreement among people within the social group - that could not be more obvious or undeniable.
I don't understand what your problem is, then. If rights are created in a social agreement, then they're not permanent and they can be changed when there's no more agreement, as was done in Dobbs.
Dobbs aligns perfectly with your conception of rights, so stop complaining and just go find another social group that wants to give you the rights you want to have.
Cronut, our constitution seeks to make as permanent as is possible our agreed upon rights, not make them subject to a court taken over by force by religious freaks, or voted on by people, most of whom will never face value of having that right.
No. It grants explicit powers to the federal government.
Have you actual read the constitution? Because it doesn't seem like you've actually read the constitution.
But he knows what he knows, because he is so much smarter than us simple church folk
Why would he read something so oppressive by dead white slavers?
Where is the part about murdering the unborn?
Lol. So if 50.1% agree something isn’t a right, it ceases to be? What a profound thinker you are
It all boils down to the question of the fetus's personhood.
Everyone agrees that at some point, before birth, the fetus achieves personhood and has rights to safety and protection from violence, just like any other citizen.
When does that happen? There's the rub.
Pretty much.
That question was acknowledged and part of Roe. It is not part of Dobbs which allows a complete ban on any abortion if that's what a state chooses.
"That question was acknowledged and part of Roe."
Aaaaaaand people still disagree about it. Courts don't control thought. They only control men who use violence.
it must be so hard to get through life with such a low IQ
He got a job posting talking-points on websites all day, so it's not all bad.
Why people pay a Canadian to post about American politics is beyond me.
It'd be beyond me too, but if someone wants to start I'd be happy to accept.
If they pay you in Strange Brew swag..
>>There's the rub.
the default answer was always protect life.
Monty Python comes to mind.
life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true.
No, it wasn't and isn't. Most Americans disagree with you.
Most Americans disagree that we should protect life?
Most Americans do not agree that protecting life was always the default answer to abortion.
lol I will totally fund your poll of Most Americans. go now, hurry! send me the tab.
Do you actually talk to other people?
Chuckle. Well I'm just going to save that little post for later.
If that was true then why the hostility?
Yeah, I don't accept the "personhood" argument. Why does a human fetus not have personhood up until a specified point? How is personhood defined? What are the criteria used to deny personhood? Who decides when to grant or deny personhood? Is personhood a thing that can even be granted of denied based on some set of criteria?
And using science as a set of criteria doesn't cut it because science is continuously making new discoveries. What if the scientific criteria change based on new discoveries? Does that mean we've wrongly denied personhood to millions of people and allowed them to be killed because we didn't consider them fully people?
The idea that there's some kind of sliding scale of personhood is a morally bankrupt argument. History is FULL of examples of how litigating or legislating personhood leads to murder, abuse, suffering, and widespread evil against those denied personhood. It's no coincidence that southern slaveholders used the "personhood" argument in order to justify owning slaves, or that Nazis reduced Jews to not-fully-human status in order to justify extermination.
So far, it's their strongest argument for abortion, and it's pretty weak.
I love how all these stalinist libs who spent their whole lives fully supporting every possible over-reach of the federal government ,and every possible restriction on my freedom and liberty, have suddenly found out about the 9th amendment.
Wait until they read the 10th!
Woodchipper, liberals have widely championed and cheered all the 9th amendment rights which issued from Griswold, including contraception, sexual activities between adults, gay marriage, abortion, and freedom to marry those of other races (strangely unmentioned by Thomas in his assault on the others). Where were you "libertarians"?
they DID NOT champion those as 9th amendment rights.
The 9th amendment is fucking kryptonite to liberals.
It undermines just about everything the federal government does today.
"In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court held that the right of privacy within marriage predated the Constitution. The ruling asserted that the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments also protect a right to privacy."
PS Woodchipper: Where were you libertarians on all those rights which Griswold found and that were made real under our federal constitution? You love slavery it turns out if you're not one of the slaves.
May I ask where that quotation is from?
He plagiarized it from here.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/griswold-v-connecticut-1965
Of course, he can't actually explain it. But that never stopped him before.
I'm still confused what the 9th Amendment would even mean post incorporation. Someone must have discussed this, but the 9th Amendment I have little knowledge of how it's been applied.
I think that they're just reaching for anything right now. It doesn't actually matter if it backs their argument. Their supporters are emotes, not thinkers.
What matters is creating the impression amongst their faithful that this was a political rather than legal ruling. You can't incite as well if you don't make them believe that it was somehow unfair.
TLDR, they're gaslighting their acolytes.
It has never been used as the sole argument in a SCOTUS decision. And read in the context of the 10th, that recognizes that the states can have powers not otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, how can incorporation nullify state laws unless they conflict with enumerated rights?
I would think that the SCOTUS can only nullify state law to the extent it violates an enumerated right or the state constitution or in upholding a state precedent.
Re: Kennedy v. Bremterton
https://twitter.com/mrbenwexler/status/1541427683829002240?s=20&t=U2AvdYLRxUsZp3tl9zJjOA
Why do they always assumed that the ruling would have been different if it were Jews or Muslims?
Because they themselves are actually the real bigots, the ones who separate people by categories and delineations.
They are the ones who believe in separate treatment, discrimination, special rules for special classes etc.
They are projecting when they say this stuff.
100%
It's pretty funny. My kid goes to Catholic school, and they have a Jewish "sister school" that they do all kinds of activities with. The kids teach each other about holidays, traditions, etc.
It's just painfully obvious that they don't actually know any Christians- just the stereotypes they see on their woke TV shows.
The same is true of black people. Woke progs don't actually know any black people- just the ones they see on TV, or the ones in academia.
Tbe Jewish kids love the goyim
Yeah, because Jews are not surrounded by Christians and Christian culture all their life in America. Blacks too have no idea about white people and how they behave.
WTF are you talking about?
"Blacks too have no idea about white people and how they behave."
WTF are YOU talking about?
I think he basically reversed your point and joke that you made the opposite point to the one you made, that is that Black people don't understand white people. And I think they read you as saying that the "they" in "It's just painfully obvious that they don't know any Christians" is referring to Jewish people.
Oh okay. I'm glad someone here speaks Joe.
BestUsed worked weekends at the zoo in college where they had a retarded chimp.
This is where is pays to be precise. The chimp was not retarded. It had advanced syphilis, which is why it was such a good analog for Friday.
Sarcasm Cronut. Look it up.
Or you could just do it better.
Sperging and sarcasm aren't the same thing, Joe.
Totally off topic but what does anyone think about that guy slapping Giuliani on the back?
Over blown or legit if only because it is a crime against the elderly
I posted the link before I saw the video, but it actually looks overblown to me.
Teach me for having autoplay blocked and relying on the text I suppose.
Yeah. I would throw if that was my 80 year old dad and the same thing happened to him from some young punk who didn't want to discuss the evolution of the split finger fastball
So what did you think after the video?
Yeah...I just saw that. I commented. I'm no fan of his later works but that guy intended to hurt him under the guise of friendly pat that was anything but.
Imagine if that was Arnold when he was gov.