Republicans Seek Child Support Payments for Fetuses
Plus: Judge blocks Title IX guidance, Amazon admits turning over Ring surveillance footage to cops, and more...

New legislation would require some fathers to pay child support during pregnancy, beginning in the month of conception. The Unborn Child Support Act—introduced in the Senate by Sen. Kevin Cramer (R–N.D.) last Wednesday—would amend the Social Security Act "to ensure that child support for unborn children is collected and distributed under the child support enforcement program."
The legislation (Senate Bill 4512) already has nine co-sponsors—all Republicans—including Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss.), Roger Wicker (Miss.), and Marco Rubio (Fla.). A companion bill in the House, introduced by Rep. Mike Johnson (R–La.), has 13 co-sponsors.
Under the Unborn Child Support Act, a pregnant woman could request child support during pregnancy and the state could order "the biological father of an unborn child" to pay, beginning "with the first month in which the child was conceived, as determined by a physician." Unborn child is defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
Such payments "may be retroactively collected or awarded, including in the case where paternity is established subsequent to the birth of the child," the draft law states.
I'm introducing the Unborn Child Support Act with @RepMikeJohnson, legislation to give mothers the ability to receive child support payments while pregnant.
Our bill makes it possible for mothers to receive payments as soon as she's supporting a child. https://t.co/fCxAUxi8dm
— Sen. Kevin Cramer (@SenKevinCramer) July 13, 2022
Abortion opponents are often accused of not doing much to actually help women with unwanted or difficult pregnancies. Looked at in one light, the Unborn Child Support Act is simply a bid to remedy that.
"Caring for the well-being of our children begins long before a baby is born," said Cramer in a statement. "It begins at the first moment of life—conception—and fathers have obligations, financial and otherwise, during pregnancy."
But sponsors of the bill may have a hidden agenda. By amending federal law to say that child support is owed during pregnancy, the Unborn Child Support Act could help establish that legal personhood begins at conception—a change that could have implications far beyond child support.
"Life begins at conception. This bill is a simple first step toward updating our federal laws to reflect that fact," tweeted Johnson last week.
Cramer and several co-sponsors of the Unborn Child Support Act are also co-sponsors of a stalled federal bill declaring that "the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being."
"This is not the first time they've tried to insert this personhood language into a national bill," Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund co-founder Laurie Bertram Roberts told the Mississippi Free Press. "And see, the way they're doing it is very sneaky, the way they're doing it is under the guise of, 'Oh look, doesn't this make sense?' Because this is one of those arguments that has been coming from people who actually support abortion, which is why I tell people not to make these arguments, even in jest, like, 'If y'all want to make us have babies, start child support at the moment of conception.'"
Roberts also suggested that the bill could be "another way to nickel and dime low-income and working class non-custodial parents in a way that makes money for the state."
FREE MINDS
Judge blocks Biden administration's Title IX guidance. On Friday, a federal judge put a halt on the Biden administration's 2021 guidance regarding Title IX. The policy guidance would extend Title IX's protection against sex-based discrimination in education to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Twenty states have sued over the proposed change. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. said the new guidance "directly interferes with and threatens Plaintiff States' ability to continue enforcing their state laws" and issued a preliminary injunction on its enforcement.
The Department of Education "will have to finalize its Title IX rule to enforce its guidance," notes Politico. "The Education Department published its Title IX proposed rule in June, which would codify its guidance protecting transgender students once it's finalized. The comment period on the rule runs through September." Read more on the proposed rule here.
FREE MARKETS
Amazon answers about Ring surveillance. Amazon admitted that it sometimes turns over footage from its Ring home security cameras to law enforcement without Ring owners knowing it and without a warrant. The acknowledgment came in response to a request for information from Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.). In a July 1 letter, Amazon said it has turned over data under such circumstances 11 times this year.
"Ring has stated that it will not share 'customer information' with law enforcement absent consent, a warrant, or 'an exigent or emergency' circumstance," noted Markey, asking Amazon to "please explain in detail Ring's specific internal policies regarding what constitutes an 'exigent or emergency' circumstance."
"How many times has Ring shared a user's recordings with law enforcement because of
an 'exigent or emergency' circumstance?" Markey also asked.
Amazon responded:
As stated in Ring's law enforcement guidelines, Ring reserves the right to respond immediately to urgent law enforcement requests for information in cases involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person. Emergency disclosure requests must be accompanied by a completed emergency request form.Based on the information provided in the emergency request form and the circumstances described by the officer, Ring makes a good-faith determination
whether the request meets the well-known standard, grounded in federal law, that there is imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requiring disclosure of information without delay. …
So far this year, Ring has provided videos to law enforcement in response to an emergency request only 11 times. In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without delay.
wow. this is the actual page where cops can go to request Ring camera footage from Amazon without a warrant or the camera owner's consent. it has a big "submit emergency request" button. when you click that button it takes you to a form. it's so clear how easily abused this is pic.twitter.com/3YSOVyDBME
— Evan Greer is on Mastodon and Bluesky (@evan_greer) July 15, 2022
QUICK HITS
The Drug War is officially back on in San Francisco. For the first time in years, people are being prosecuted for simply using drugs or possessing paraphernalia. It's hard to fully comprehend the harm this will cause. I'll try to lay it out below.
— Peter Calloway (@petercalloway) July 18, 2022
• A shooter killed three people in an Indianapolis mall on Sunday before being shot by an armed bystander.
• What abortion code words can tell us about online activism.
• The U.S. military isn't immune from tough times recruiting: "Almost across the board, the armed forces are experiencing large shortfalls in enlistments this year—a deficit of thousands of entry-level troops that is on pace to be worse than any since just after the Vietnam War," notes The New York Times. The pandemic, vaccination policies, and a hot labor market play a role, as do "longer-term demographic trends … Less than one-quarter of young American adults are physically fit to enlist and have no disqualifying criminal record, a proportion that has shrunk steadily in recent years."
• Land acknowledgment policies are at the center of a lawsuit involving the University of Washington.
• "A new report on federal firearm offenses shows that the vast majority involve illegal possession, often without aggravating circumstances or a history of violence," notes Reason's Jacob Sullum. "The data undermine the assumption that people who violate gun laws are predatory criminals who pose a serious threat to public safety" and "highlight the racially disproportionate impact of such laws."
• "The Texas Medical Association wants regulators to step in after hospitals reportedly refused to treat patients with serious pregnancy complications for fear of violating the state's abortion ban," reports The Dallas Morning News.
• "The Department of Education should not exist," said Betsy DeVos, the former secretary of the Department of Education.
• "More than halfway through 2022, many cities and towns across America—big and small—are somehow still pretending that food trucks are some newfangled nuisances that must be regulated out of existence," writes Baylen Linnekin for Reason.
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
New legislation would require some fathers to pay child support during pregnancy...
Handmaid's Tale averted!
You know the birthing person is just going to spend that money on herself.
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (kzy-029) achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line
visiting this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://earncash91.tk
The Republicans are dangling it as advance payment for votes. Already the ku-klux Tea party has revived and taken over the LP, so fascism needn't fear our spoiler votes any more than when Pinhead and Boothead were placed in charge.
ENB really feared that life will be defined as life and granted rights at conception.
Pro Aborter: If you *really* believed that these were people you would do [foo].
Pro Lifer: Let's do [foo].
Pro Aborter: Oh my god, they believe these are people! How dare they!
Note that we spent a week or so with certain people arguing that if Pro Lifers were really interested in protecting lives, they would charge women with murder, and investigate every miscarriage for murder.
Perhaps rather than try to catch pro-lifers in rhetorical traps and logical gotchas, the Pro Abortion crowd should try negotiating a compromise with the Pro Lifers that acknowledges (not necessarily accepting) their position, while keeping the state's powers as minimal as possible.
negotiating a compromise...acknowledge (not necessarily accepting) their position...keeping the state's powers as minimal as possible.
What part of that is supposed to appeal to leftists?
Well they ostensibly don't want the government to have the power to investigate and punish mothers for getting an abortion. So maybe instead of trying to goad Pro-Lifers into doing so with a bunch of rhetorical heckling, they should...you know...work with Pro Lifers to make sure the government doesn't get the power to investigate and punish mothers for getting an abortion.
Start now incomes each week extra than $7,000 to 8,000 through doing quite simple and smooth domestic primarily based totally task on-line. Last month I've made $32,735 through doing this on-line task simply in my component time for handiest 2 hrs. an afternoon the usage of my laptop. This task is simply wonderful and smooth to do in component time. Start incomes extra greenbacks on-line simply through follow:-
.
Commands here:☛☛☛ https://yourjobs85.blogspot.com/
There does not exist a power that leftists want prohibited to government. If it looks like they do on any issue, consider they are simply lying about their true desires and the argument is a convenient tool for whatever outcome they seek.
".......a compromise with the Pro Lifers that acknowledges (not necessarily accepting) their position, while keeping the state's powers as minimal as possible."
you mean like the compromise that existed for the last 50yrs? the one over 70% of Americans were happy with?
the only ones refusing any compromise or moving the goal posts are the pro-lifers... it is like trying to find a compromise with a gun grabber. no matter what you give them, we KNOW they will continue to push for more. when they even use the word "compromise," it is a lie.
"you mean like the compromise that existed for the last 50yrs? the one over 70% of Americans were happy with?"
An obvious unconstitutional ruling isn't a compromise. Roe needed to be overturned on this basis alone. There's nothing 70% of Americans are happy with. Like most politicized stats, this is a complete fabrication.
can't handle the facts? just claim it is a fabrication and ignore them.
The fact is that you're part of the 20% minority that supports unlimited abortion. I'm sure you'll continue to ignore that one, too.
step 2..... just make shit up.....
i have NEVER said anything about unlimited abortion.
Yes: making shit up, your speciality.
To listen to progressives, nobody gets an abortion unless they're desperate and in a bad place, and either the pill doesn't really exist, or they took BC responsibly, and it failed. Also, third-trimester abortion never happens, but it should still be perfectly legal, and millions of women will die horrible deaths if abortion is restricted at any gestational age for any reason. Sexual restraint is an unbearably repressive burden because sexual identity is everything, so promiscuity should be celebrated in all its forms, and sex should carry no consequences except for mind-blowing female orgasms.
I don't think they care much about the otgasms part
Cannot recognize a Constitutional right for people to own themselves.
"just claim it is a fabrication and ignore it", Pro-Life Gov-Gun Mad mobsters.
4th Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons"
The question isn't whether there is a right to privacy or due process. The question is whether such rights apply to abortion. If there weren't another living human body involved, it wouldn't be an issue.
Pro-Life doesn't even argue "another living human body involved"...
They avoid what they perch their topic on like nobodies business..
A right for the ?baby? to be free from it's prison (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
A right for the woman to own her own body....
WHERE THE !!!-F-!!! is it not understood both deserve liberty???
The Pro-Life mob will ignore that to the end of themselves.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom...
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction...
*The undeniable reality*
You just know that this freakshow had his own kid aborted. That's why he's desperate to pretend that a five month old fetus isn't fully human.
Sorry; Wrong...
Personal attacks are always the last resort of a failed argument.
The government doesn't "force" anybody to reproduce. People have intercourse, and sexual reproduction is sometimes the result. Once reproduction has already occurred, that is when abortion does or doesn't happen. You people act like we're living in dystopian Communist Romania.
False argument... You're purposely trying to pretend, "We didn't FORCE anyone to drive a car therefore BANNING them with Gov-Gun threats from medical services after an accident is totes okay...."
Any excuse... Any excuse at all to GROW that Gov-Gun Power....
My God, your critical thinking skills are shit. The federal government saying there is no Constitutional right for citizens to drive tanks through residential neighborhoods is not forcing people to sit stationary in tanks in their driveways.
Humorously; You cannot seem to distinguish between driving a tank on public property and OWNING ONE'S OWN SELF....
Then have the nerve to say my critical thinking skills are shit??? LMAO...
One thing is wildly apparent; Pro-Lifers love to dabble in fantasy land...
"My God, your critical thinking skills are shit."
When he's not screaming that the Catholics somehow changed all the dictionaries, he's creating false dilemmas. The guy is a nut.
which is why there has always been an attempt to balance the rights of mother and fetus.
historically, it was the quickening.
under roe, it was viability.
from a practical matter, it would be when you don't have to violate the woman's rights to even know about that other human's existence.
all these things happen within a few weeks of each other, and are all in the range where people start to go from being OK with abortion to not being OK with it..... and it is where we were for the last 50yrs.
You of course are referring to the 70% who want regulations after the first trimester. The liberals kept suing to keep that compromise dead.
Overturning Roe v Wade made ZERO change to that.
Which doesn't change the fact that it's what the DNC's mouthpieces in the media want, not to mention their cathedral supporters in Hollywood and academia, and are pushing it relentlessly.
Kinda like how exactly the RNC is pushing the other way too far?
Don't let the first happen, and you won't get the second. Even Marcuse should have been able to figure that out.
Sorry to break it to you, but the Senate considered a bill to protect abortion nationally. It failed because even the Democrats in the Senate could not agree to even Roe's allowance for third trimester restrictions. Like so many kulturkampf issues, the left starts a fight and then bitches and whines when the right hits back. The administration was already trying to work around the Hyde Amendment.
the only ones refusing any compromise or moving the goal posts are the pro-lifers...
Uh, no. The "abortion without restrictions" crowd, which makes up only 20% of Americans but seems larger because they make up most of the press, Hollywood, and the DNC political class, are the ones causing most of the drama here.
If they hadn't passed, or tried to pass, such extreme abortion laws as the ones in New York and Virginia, you'd still have Roe and none of this would have been an issue.
considering that overturning Roe does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to those more permissive laws...... that is about the stupidest straw-man you could set up.
+1000000; It's almost like stupid Pro-Lifers don't even know what Roe v Wade was.... Oh well; even though it was written by a Republican Supreme Court - so long as the left supports it, it must be horrible.... /s
Many on the right don't know what Roe said, and neither does nearly the entire left. When progressives in NY and CA are wailing and gnashing their teeth because they think their legal right to kill their unborn offspring has been revoked by an "activist" Court that only punted the issue back to the states, it's a dead giveaway.
Overturning Roe v Wade DESTROYED Individual Liberty by putting State Gov-Guns in charge of any pregnant woman (No Pre-21 weeks of self-ownership)..
Some State's may still grant Individual Liberty but it's at the whim of State Gov-Guns now.. They can pretty much ENSLAVE all pregnant women to be State-Owned medical equipment for their precious 'unicorn' harvesting operation.
Sorry your desire to legalize abortion on demand has such fringe support.
Legalize on-demand ?baby? ejection.....
Why is the subject so out of scope to it's media narrative?
MORE, MORE, MORE Gov-Gun Power?? Think about it.
You seem to think government force only violates rights and doesn't secure them. The U.S. government declaring something a right legally justifies forceful federal intervention to ensure that right is protected.
"The U.S. government declaring something a right legally justifies forceful federal intervention to ensure that right is protected."
Either you recognize that as one level of Gov-Guns LIMITING another Gov-Gun desire for dictation... (i.e. ensuring Individual Liberty and Justice for all)..
-Or- you're making leftard points to a T...
Rights are inalienable (natural rights - by the creator); they are not granted by Gov-Guns... Humorously; One of the most famous --leftard-- manipulative propaganda points ever.
Leftards favorite game to play is....
How 'Individual Rights' is somehow Gov-Gun THEFT 'Entitlements'...
Rights don't protect themselves, unless you're a particularly naive form of anarchist. SOME rights are inalienable, and some are alienable, but the right to kill your offspring in utero is not Constitutionally guaranteed as a natural right. It is a legal right in many places that effectively violates natural rights. My individual right to bodily autonomy in my fist is naturally restricted where your nose begins.
The right to free one's offspring from the prison of INSIDE another person????
Like I've been saying all along. Pro-Life can't even argue what they perch their arguments on... 100% ignorant to fetal ejection.
Sorry your desire to legalize abortion on demand has such fringe support.Like I've been saying all along. Pro-Life can't even argue what they perch their arguments on... 100% ignorant to fetal ejection.
Like I've been saying all along, abortion maximalists can't even pinpoint when life begins.
"pinpoint when life begins"
When it's NOT a piece of someone else and therefore exists as an Individual (syn; Separate)... (i.e. Fetal Ejection). If I dig up a corpse and run a mechanical pump and mechanical air through it; it isn't alive... If someone's child gets chopped up in a machine to the point he/she has to be on life support the removal of that life support is a FAMILY/PERSONAL decision.... (NOT for Gov-Gun Power-Mad death panels) to decide.
considering that overturning Roe does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to those more permissive laws...... that is about the stupidest straw-man you could set up.
Not nearly as stupid as believing your fringe support for abortion on demand is the majority view.
On-Demand ?baby? freedom....... ?? Anyone???
It's like the most OBVIOUS solution is the one being entirely ignored.
Take. Your. Meds.
Because......... Pro-Life is after "saving" anything...
They're after Gov-Gun Power to FORCE people to reproduce.
You are a particularly thick headed idiot. Your total ignoring of the good faith arguments of others, and replacing them with your bad faith straw man fantasies is not nearly as effective as you think it is. By a factor of a trillion
There is no "good faith" arguments for pushing Gov-Gun threats into other people's PERSONAL LIFE'S.... Mind UR OWN F'En business...
UR mistake is the same as leftards... You live in a delusional world where legislation is just a "good" idea or a "central party planning" organization.
Well let me clue you in ---- The only difference between Government and any run-of-the mill business/charity/organization is the legal use of Gov-Guns...
So if you're not willing to shoot someone else to FORCE them to do what you think is a "good" idea; it has NO BUSINESS being legislated. (distancing yourself from the very implementation government is --- i.e. using a 3rd party mob)
i.e. "Good faith" arguments belong in religious churches...
NOT Gov-Gun legislation.
You are so stupid you don’t even know what good faith argument means
Sorry your desire to legalize abortion on demand has such fringe support.
"the only ones ... moving the goal posts are the pro-lifers..."
You do realize there are many people now calling for abortion up until (and sometimes even during or immediately after) birth right? You think that is 50 years old?
what part of "the compromise that EXISTED" is so hard for you guys?
Because the compromise was based on a standard of viability. It was vague. And leftists kept suing to deny advances in technology moving that line.
Are you ignorant or dumb?
"but but the Science!!!", Rub a Pro-Lifer and out pops a leftard.
Your right it was vague.. And if Pro-Lifers had a brain what-so-ever they'd realize the only REAL constitutional matter would be that pregnant women ALWAYS own themselves and cannot be made 'slaves' of Gov-Gun dictates.
If Pro-Life even cared to actually address what they perch their pedestals on they'd pass State law making intentionally killing a fetus illegal...
But that's NOT what they're after.. What they are after is Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction. (i.e. Women ENSLAVED 'medical equipment' of the State to save their 'unicorn' harvesting operation.)
And the pedophile proves yet again that the "every sperm is sacred" fundies have far more principle than the "it's just a clump of cells" crowd.
SET IT FREE!!!! It DESERVES LIBERTY TOO!!!! (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
Thomas J Jones
@tjj2000
·
Dec 3, 2021
Turn Ons: "Twinks / Teens; Emo / Scene; Piercings and Tatts. I also have a thing for Belly Buttons (The stranger the better), belly button piercings on guys, and belly button torture"
your argument didn't have anything to do with viability, dummy.... you were too busy focusing on your "up to birth" straw man.
Sorry you can't get more than 20% support for abortion up to the moment of birth, dummy.
No. That was not a compromise. And no, the left did not accept so.e reasonable restriction.
Look at very recent history. Abortion up to the moment of birth is a religion for some, just as much as life begins at birth.
Crowder did a nice bit on this. He asked people at an abortion rights rally about their position. A few were absolutist, even when pressed.
But most agreed with restrictions much less permissive than most of the Handmaids Tale dystopian laws the left decries at the moment. Most seemed to believe that aborting a baby with a detectable heartbeat was wrong and should not be allowed.
This is what happens when you try to rule by fiat from an ivory tower.
Democracy might be messy, but it does allow for a consensus to build around middle ground.
Holy crap you Pro-Lifers are dumb about what Roe v Wade was...
Roe v Wade LEFT every post-21 week abortion up to State Legislation.
ZERO; Overturning Roe v Wade had ZERO effect on anything past 21-weeks.
Roe v Wade didn't have a number of weeks standard dumbfuck. It had a viability standard.
How are you ignorant about every single aspect of this discussion?
As it should have...
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom.
UR supporting FORCED reproduction.
It's generally understood to be right around 21-weeks. The only 'problem' is State's pretending that it meant they could ENSLAVE a pregnant woman into continuing to reproduce. (i.e. Fetal Ejection on demand).
It's generally understood to be right around 21-weeks.
When is it, specifically? "Generally understood" and "right around" are just the typical hand-waving and misdirection you abortion absolutists love to engage in.
Dodge the *real* solution again...
Course it's predictable..... Because Pro-Life isn't after "saving" anything..
They're after FORCING people by Gov-Gun POWER to reproduce against their own will (for someone else's will) out of their tyrannical dictative own Power-Ego's.
They're after FORCING people by Gov-Gun POWER to reproduce against their own will (for someone else's will) out of their tyrannical dictative own Power-Ego's.
Maybe if you weren't a pedophile, you wouldn't have to worry about it.
Reading comprehension fail?
What kind of compromise allows elective 3rd trimester abortions?
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tiller-ignoring-threats-doctors-trimester-abortions/story?id=18233523&page=1
is it the "that existed" part that screws you guys up?
was elective 3rd trimester abortions the law of the land under roe? no... it was not. you all really need to have a conversation with the person writing your talking points, because this straw man is just pathetic.
Hey dummy, thats why most here were for sending it to the states. Stop moving the goal posts. One side wanted a national standard to fuck with people in other states. That was the left.
Actually it was the right of 1973 (Roe v Wade was written by a Republican Supreme Court)...
And the only "sending" it did was from PERSONAL CHOICE to State Gov-Gun Control.
...the "sending" of over-turning Roe v Wade ---
"MORE, MORE, MORE Gov-Gun Power!!!!", Pro-Lifers
If it hurts your kiddie-diddling side, it's automatically good.
^BINGO.... The Power-Mad Ego on full display.
Bingo--killing kiddie diddlers is automatically good.
you didn't want to send it to the states to keep from fucking with people, you wanted to send it to the states to ALLOW fucking with people.
pro-lifers are the only ones in this conversation that want to fuck with anyone.
LOL
It brings me great joy that this fat fuck's sacrament has been challenged.
was elective 3rd trimester abortions the law of the land under roe? no... it was not.
What do you think the New York and Virginia laws were about, you dumbfuck?
were states required to have it? was it federally mandated?
JFC you guys are committed to your stupid straw-man.
Fatass clearly doesn't know what a strawman is...
And woooooooooosh go the goalposts!
Take the L, faggot.
Pro-lifers weren't the ones pushing for the change from safe legal and rare to shout your abortion, they weren't the ones pushing for abortion up to birth while claiming support from 70% of the population, a level of support that only exists for the first trimester. In short, you are either lying, ignorant, insane or evil though I accept the possibility of and in there.
Overturning Roe v Wade didn't change ANYTHING (ZIP) on that subject. What was the point; just to piss people off by growing Gov-Guns of dictation into everyone's pregnancy? Tyrannical dictators LOVES those Gov-Guns of tyrannical dictation on 'those' icky people.
70% isn't the number of people pushing for more permissive abortion laws.... (that don't actually result in more abortions, because pretty much nobody gets one that late even when allowed.)
it is the percentage that liked the national standard where it was.... between 20-24 weeks...
stop choking on your straw man, dumbfucks.
The extreme pro-abortioners are also unwilling to compromise. Remember that this whole thing was over a 15 week ban. Which a lot of people in the middle on this issue see as a reasonable compromise.
Remember that this whole thing was over a 15 week ban.
Which isn't that different from most of the entire fucking planet, including the socialist European paradises the left wants us to imitate. The whole goal from the beginning has been to codify abortion through the entire pregnancy, which they could NEVER get support for because it's always been an extreme policy practiced mostly by authoritarian communist regimes.
"If only the USA could be as socialist as European paradises!!!", Pro-Lifers....
Rub a Pro-Lifer and out pops a leftard.
Rub a Pro-Abortionist and out pops a kiddie-diddler.
Well, I guess I'm part of the "Pro Abortion crowd" and that sounds like the right approach to me. I think there are a lot of people like me who can acknowledge that the pro-life crowd makes some reasonable arguments and isn't all about subjugating women, but still thinks legal and available abortion at least early in pregnancy is a preferable state of affairs.
unfortunately, pro-lifers seem to have a hard time trying to understand and appreciate the valid points of others.... to them, any support for abortion at any point is indistinguishable from extreme late term abortions.
Except that's what your side is pushing, is late-term abortions.
Hell, you could have had Roe codified in to law decades ago if your side didn't want abortion on demand and realized that most people aren't comfortable with them past the first trimester.
^^^demonstrating my point perfectly.... even when it is explicitly pointed out that they are unable to separate the most extreme abortion allowances from what most people actually support, this dumb fuck still can't help but beat on that straw man.
Hey dumbfuck, I've pointed out repeatedly that support for abortion plummets after the first trimester.
But you support abortion up to the moment of birth, so you can fuck right off.
The reality is that what Pro-Forced Birthers and Pro-Aborters both realize. Americans broadly (About 3 in 4) support abortion up to 15 weeks and beyond only with exceptions. I'd suggest that should be the rule everywhere in the US. Abortion up to 15 weeks with zero state and local restrictions and beyond 15 weeks only with a valid reason (rape, incest, underage, life of mother, life of fetus, significant disability).
Gang-bangers and other free-spirited baby daddies hardest hit.
Is there anything racism can't explain away?
Not for Team Blue.
The Education Department published its Title IX proposed rule in June, which would codify its guidance protecting transgender students once it's finalized. The comment period on the rule runs through September.
Biologist comments only, please.
Protect them from what?
Reality.
zing!
Transwomen with advanced degrees in biology only, please.* Cis women are compromised.
What is a woman?
What is a pregnant person?
My trans-pregnant self deserves child support payments.
D.C. is complaining about the costs of 6000 illegal immigrants bussed to them from Arizona and Texas, who recieve tens of thousands of illegal immigrants a years.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/-dc-democrats-beg-help-migrant-busing-texas
Well, as long as they don't occupy the Capitol.
https://twitter.com/ResistereNews/status/1548616060496224256?t=n2LTFVDTuMnIJeAu0g0QdA&s=19
GO ROME The whole of Italy has taken to the streets. Parliament, surrounded for the 2nd consecutive day.
Who would want to be NWO police? Ffs. Join the people.
[Video]
Keep bussing the illegals to DC. That is the only appropriate response.
Mixing in some buses to Alexandria would be nice too.
Cue the pearl-clutching by wealthy, deep blue parents imagining their school district being flooded by less well off, brown-skinned, native Spanish speakers who identify racistly as Hispanic rather than "Latinx."
There are still no legal documents showing Hunter divested his 10% stake in Chinese government linked firm.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/hunter-biden-company-china-records-show
Such as I'm now 9 months older and get to retire 9 months sooner?
Western society has always celebrated birthdays, not fuckdays. I have heard that Japanese used to count how many New Years someone had lived through. Maybe other societies measure life in other ways.
There are a couple of societies that count age starting at conception instead of birth.
Can you name them, please?
China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Vietnam, Yoruba, Ibo, Quechua, etc.
Okay, we want to be like them then? I thought we were supposed to be like Hungary now. So confused.
What does that idiotic retort have to do with his showing you up - you asked the question
Your confused? You asked us to name the countries, and when I did you accuse us of wanting everyone to be like that.
I'm confused.
Day drinking again, Brandy?
We call it "gestational age."
Most of Asia, some parts of Africa and the Indigenous Americas assigned age from conception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning
It's not a one to one comparison because each country is different and age and birthdays are culturally viewed differently from the European way.
For example some cultures didn't celebrate birthdays but everyone added a year to their age on New Year's Day instead.
On the other hand, some Asian cultures also practiced widespread infanticide instead of abortion and didn’t consider children to be fully human until age 7. There’s that.
Rome was also big on the infanticide thing. Which is also why it's so funny when it gets used as a historical example of why abortion should be legal.
Don't give them ideas. The blue checks are already arguing for up to age two.
Should start when you're a twinkle in you're dad's eye.
I for one have always lived. From the dawn of spacetime to now, and forever after.
I. Am. Inevitable... or eternal. Whichever works best.
Republicans Seek Child Support Payments for Fetuses
More pouncing.
pouncing is how we got in this pregnancy situation in the first place
The policy guidance would extend Title IX's protection against sex-based discrimination in education to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
I like how your entire section fails to specify what the guidance actually did.
I wonder why that could be?
Of the men still compete with the men that still complies with title ix
"Land acknowledgment policies are at the center of a lawsuit involving the University of Washington."
I think I would do...
"Id like to first acknowledge that the founder's were fucking awesome, the constitution is great, and America is better than all the socialist shitholes of the world combined"
as my land acknowledgement.
It is interesting how little pearl clutching there is that this is compelled speech (that does not have much to do with the actual curriculum) by the school administrators on a professor.
But that would not apply to people who see the modern university as a doctrinaire, theocratic institute, with a core mission focused on promoting the correct social-political regime change.
"The U.S. military isn't immune from tough times recruiting"
That's surprising. I figured many of my patriotic progressive friends would be eager to serve under Commander in Chief Joe Biden in the new and improved LGBTQIA+ friendly intersectional military.
#InclusivityIsMoreImportantThanWinningWars
#InclusivityIsMoreImportantThanWinningWars
Even the war against Russia?
Well, as much as I'd like to see a nuclear war that destroys all of Russia...
If OTOH the war against Russia drags on for decades with no clear winner — which seems to be the desired outcome of our modern intersectional military — that would be cool in its own way. We'd get thousands more Fiona columns using the conflict as an excuse to promote our benefactor Charles Koch's open borders agenda.
#CheapLaborAboveAll
Does inclusivity include hypocrites and cowards?
It mandates them.
So far this year, Ring has provided videos to law enforcement in response to an emergency request only 11 times.
Maybe you were one of the lucky 11!
Also, I doubt that count.
I'm pretty sure "11" represents the number of instances where law enforcement having used it is a matter of public record and thus, cannot be denied. The other thousands of times have been memory-holed.
Or "11" is in base million.
It's one more than ten, isn't it?
But muh private company!
For the first time in years, people are being prosecuted for simply using drugs or possessing paraphernalia. It’s hard to fully comprehend the harm this will cause.
Wake me when they go after shoplifters and looters.
Those people are saving government funds by self-achieving their equity. It's way more efficient if they go get it instead of having it done by government gun barrel.
More efficient maybe, but definitely diminishing the bureaucratic job opportunities for thousands of grievance studies majors.
Libertarians: We want criminal justice reform to stop prosecuting people for victimless crimes.
Lefties: Here’s criminal justice reform where we stop prosecuting people for violating other people’s rights.
Everyone: No, thats not what we want.
Lefties: More prosecution of victimless crimes it is!
lol perfectly said
A shooter killed three people in an Indianapolis mall on Sunday before being shot by an armed bystander.
Well, that's inconvenient to the narrative.
Was this gang violence?
“The shooter has only been described as an adult male. Police said he had a rifle and several magazines of ammunition.”
Not a lot of details yet, but that sounds like the m.o. of a random crazy person shooter, not a gang shooter.
The shooter was some skinny white yabo with a poverty pony AR-15, so probably not.
One good thing about this is that it shows even someone with an "assault rifle" can be stopped by someone with an ordinary handgun and a will to use it.
"One good thing about this is that it shows even someone with an "assault rifle" can be stopped by someone with an ordinary handgun and a will to use it."
Yes. The left acts like an AR15 is an invincibility potion.
It is if you're a cop.
The only way to stop a bad guy with a narrative about guns is a good guy with a gun.
Truth
It's actually putting down several gun control narratives. I think it made it to the national level but, for a couple of years, Chicago politicians have been blaming gun crime in IL on IN and WI's gun laws. You'd think the Waffle House shooting would've tamped down the rhetoric but it didn't. Seems like, between Highland Park, the Kenosha Kid, and this, the narrative has been put to sleep... for now.
It is like the third time in the last month.
In the same mall?
Nah. Think one was in europe.
Multiple mass shooters have been stopped by citizens.
However, the mall does have a bit of a reputation. Not as bad as Lafayette Square Mall (maybe, I haven't been to either one in a while) but not exactly a pristine, unspoiled commercial haven either.
Most malls these days, at least the ones still operational, are pretty run-down because they aren't the high-traffic retail centers that they were during their glory era in the late 1970s-mid-1990s.
In fact, a lot of shopping centers went to the outdoor model (several buildings in a single complex), even in cold-ass places, specifically because it cut down on hoodlum traffic. The remaining malls that don't have crime problems tend to be the ones in upscale areas and/or have security that's incredibly heavy-handed.
Most malls these days, at least the ones still operational, are pretty run-down because they aren't the high-traffic retail centers that they were during their glory era in the late 1970s-mid-1990s.
The majority of my experience with Greenwood and Lafayette Square comes from the glory era, apparently.
The Oak Brook Illinois mall is in a very upscale area and they had a gang shooting several days before last Christmas. They also have many carjackings. It's also an outdoor mall.
Guess it depends on the area--Park Meadows in Highlands Ranch and Cherry Creek in central Denver haven't had to worry about that shit. Aurora replaced Buckingham Square with an outdoor mall, and it cut down on hoodlum activity because it gets too fucking cold in the winter for the hood rats to bother (that, and a lot of them have been ethnically cleansed out by the cartel members moving in to the area in the last 20 years).
16th Street Mall downtown is an outdoor mall, and it's gone through peaks and valleys. It's in a valley right now because downtown became a haven for pot-smoking homeless lunatics and ghetto-tards playing the knockout game.
A shooter killed three people in an Indianapolis mall on Sunday before being shot by an armed bystander.
"Armed bystander?" Don't you mean "a good guy with a gun?"
Funny how the headlines were all about the "mass shooting" and very little about how the threat was eliminated.
That's been standard for a long time. E.g., in the Appalachian School of Law shooting 20 years ago, all the reports for a few days copied the AP wire news service, which reported that students "subdued" the shooter, like they'd somehow taken an armed man down with their bare hands. It only gradually came out that two students (who were cops getting more training) went to their cars and got their own guns, and the shooter surrendered when they got back.
No, that's impossible. Uvalde proved that a good guy with a gun can't stop a bad guy with a gun.
When seconds matter, the cops are only hours away, standing outside the door, sanitizing their hands. #BackTheBlue
There weren't any good guys with guns for the first hour, only one murderous coward with guns and a bunch of badged cowards standing around with guns doing nothing but preventing the parents from attempting a rescue. The only good guys were the federal police that arrived about an hour after it started, and immediately brushed the other cops aside and went in.
Or "redneck MAGA gun nut who deprived a poor, mentally ill person of their civil rights".
The Brady Campaign is calling him a vigilante.
Vigilantes are going to make quite the comeback
The Brady Campaign will be among the first to know when armed American citizens do become vigilantes, but won't be sending out press releases...
Greenwood police chief disagrees:
"But I'm going to tell you, the real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop this shooter almost as soon as he began," Ison said.
lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court
That has to be the most American thing I've heard this week.
I hope Panda Express gave him a free plate of orange chicken for his heroic effort.
CNN says "armed bystander," other newsies say "good Samaritan"
The problem is that mall signage prohibits weapons, so our "good guy with the gun" was violating private property rights (the mall's) by carrying a gun into the mall.
Too fucking bad, asshole.
What abortion code words can tell us about online activism.
"The chair is against the wall. John has a long mustache."
LARPers finds a new arena.
I like how they italicize all of their "code" words, just to make sure everyone (except the imaginary abortion police, apparently) gets what they actually mean.
The whole thing is just play acting. No one is going to be arrested for telling a woman where to get an abortion. It is absurd. But they are so dependent on the idea that anyone who disagrees with them is evil, they have to act like it is a possibility. Also, pretending it is true gives them a fake sense of importance. It is all make believe. It is like the idiots who were convinced George W. Bush was going to start sending Americans who objected to the Iraq war to Guantanamo Bay. They all wanted to pretend it was 1942 and they were in the French Resistance. The fact that it wasn't true made it even better. They could get the sense of smugness and importance without actually being in danger. It is just pathetic.
No one is going to be arrested for telling a woman where to get an abortion.
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess124_2021-2022/bills/1373.htm
(2) It is unlawful to knowingly possess for sale or distribution, distribute, offer for sale, sell, or advertise the sale or distribution of an abortifacient when the person in possession, distributing, offering for sale, selling, or advertising the sale of the abortifacient knows, or has reason to know, that the person to which he is selling, distributing, or advertising the sale of the abortifacient intends to use the abortifacient to induce an abortion.
Because a proposed law that hasn't been passed much less enforced is totally the same as people being arrested for this.
Are you this stupid or do you think everyone else is?
"Are you this stupid or do you think everyone else is?"
A little of both but mostly just pathologically dishonest.
I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.
I'm simply pointing out that the claim that Team Red wants to arrest people for telling them how to get an abortion is not reliant on paranoid fears, but based on actual legislation being proposed right now.
This bill is not "make believe".
That passage jas nothing to do witb telling a person where to get an abortion. It's about selling abortifacients.
You are very dumb.
or advertising the sale of
And if that's not good enough for you:
(B) The prohibition against aiding and abetting a violation of Section 44-41-830 includes, but is not limited to knowingly and intentionally:
(1) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion;
(2) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion;
(3) offering or providing abortion doula services, knowing that the services will be used, or are reasonably likely to be used for an abortion;
(4) providing a referral to an abortion provider, knowing that the referral will result, or is reasonably likely to result, in an abortion; and
(5) providing a referral to an abortion provider and receiving monetary remuneration, or other compensation, from an abortion provider for the referral.
No. His posy correctly called out how dumb you are. He probably could have thrown in blind partisan for good measure.
I don’t call him Lefty Jeffy for nothing.
That doesn't outlaw "telling a woman where to get an abortion", dumbass.
So I take it you now consider the Pro-Lifers genuine in their beliefs, right Chemjeff? Because previously you were taking the stance that if people didn't do this, they actually cared more about responsibility or something.
But now, here they are doing exactly what you said they should do, for consistency, and- SHOCKER- you are outraged.
If I were like you, this is where I would claim that this attempt to have it both ways proves that you don't actually care about resolving certain politically contentious issues, but rather convince the nation that certain deplorables are beyond consideration.
I look forward to Lying Jeffy’s response to his clear hypocrisy being called out…
You’re gonna wait a long time…
At the core of US progressivism is a delusional, emotionally distraught drama queen, kinda like a spoiled 12 year old girl. EVERYTHING is the END OF THE WORLD. And there will be much shrieking and sobbing unless they get their way RIGHT NOW!
It's confession via projection.
They intend to jail people for all kinds of speech.
The imaginary abortion police can't read anything but the bible and are too primitive to know about the internet.
Unless there's an asterisked *wink, wink* in addition to liberal use of italics, it'll go over most abortion-seekers' heads.
"The chair is against the wall. John has a long mustache."
WOLVERINES!
Finally.
+1 "The Longest Day."
Almost across the board, the armed forces are experiencing large shortfalls in enlistments this year...
The pool of potentials with two moms is too shallow.
"We desperately need recruits that we're definitely not planning to send to the Ukraine."
Or we could conscript one family member from every house with a Ukraine flag.
I like this plan!
Blame it on Zelensky.
Social media accounts count to right?
"Too many Trump voters in the military, lets purge them".
Later...
"Boo hoo, we don't have enough kids to die in our lovely little war"
There was a proposed amendment to a bill recently calling for an investigation into neo-Nazi and white supremacy activities in the military and law enforcement and what to be done to combat it. Putting aside whether this concern is largely Leftwing bogeyman. Given how broadly the Left defines Nazi and white supremacy (listening to an Orthodox Jew who is a fairly standard issue classical liberal type conservative) is a gateway to Nazism, by their fever dreams, may be a step to an ideological purge.
So they're trying to to legitimize last years purge?
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/02/biden-secdef-austin-orders-60-day-stand-down-to-address-extremism-in-the-military/
Not just Trumpers, but purebloods too.
I think 60k national guard just got booted for being unvaxxed (specifically the covid "vax", haven't heard about any issue with routine vaccines).
On the bright side, ISIS became a force because the US purged the Iraqi military and left all those guys with nowhere to go... and a bit of a grudge.
“On the bright side, ISIS became a force because the US purged the Iraqi military and left all those guys with nowhere to go... and a bit of a grudge.”
Cue a new FBI department to reach out to ex-military. Undercover of course.
July 1, 2022, 6:42 AM CDT
By Courtney Kube
The deadline for all Army National Guard soldiers to be vaccinated for Covid passed at midnight, with about a tenth of the 330,000 soldiers still unvaccinated and subject to financial penalties or potential future expulsion.
And this despite the recession.
Give it a year.
"Abortion opponents are often accused of not doing much to actually help women with unwanted or difficult pregnancies."
Yes they are accused of this, and wrongly so. Pregnancy crisis centers provide material support for pregnant women. You buy into this lie because it fits your narrative
And they even help past pregnancy. What evil monsters.
Fortunately, Chief Warren has made it her mission to shut down all pregnancy crisis centers nationwide. She's a champion of women, after all. Or a deranged sociopath. One of the two.
What if she is a sociopath who identifies as a champion?
"Abortion opponents are often accused of not doing much to actually help women with unwanted or difficult pregnancies."
This is easily one of the biggest and most obvious lies that the abortion fanciers tell, despite being the easiest to disprove. Their own rhetoric about pregnancy centers puts paid to it.
You actually have to first will yourself into ignorance on the subject before you can actually believe it.
Double-think is a critical Party skill.
I agree pro-lifers need to push hard to streamline the adoption process and make it less expensive, but this criticism is pretty disingenuous coming from people who want to shut down crisis pregnancy centers as competitors to abortion clinics.
Odd how we were assured that abortion accounts for only a tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood does, yet overturning Roe and Casey has sent PP "women's health" facilities into a death spiral in red states.
Do you have a link to the financial issues? I hadn't heard about that happening (probably because it undermines a narrative or two).
Even the 'help women with difficult pregnancies' is pretty detached. Like, I support right to repair advocates, I wouldn't call their advocacy particularly helpful or unhelpful on a difficult repair.
I suppose if you consider harpies hovering over women going through a difficult pregnancy whispering "Do you need an abortion? I'm here to defend your right to abortion!" helpful then, yeah, opponents aren't helpful.
Land acknowledgment policies are at the center of a lawsuit involving the University of Washington.
This link is standing on land stolen from the Phrivoliss Lahsoot Tribe.
Is that the tribe that donates heavily to Democrats?
Don’t they all?
The Republicans are rightly considered the stupid party in most cases. The Republican proposal to require child support to pregnant woman makes me think that perhaps they are getting smarter. That is a brilliant. There is nothing Democratic women and feminist women like more than making some poor schlep send them a check every month for being a baby daddy. Of course Democrats can't support this because we all know life doesn't begin until the magic trip down the birth canal where a clump of cells through the magic of SCIENCE, which we all love sexually, becomes a full human being in an instant. Not supporting forcing men to send women checks, however, has to be killing the Democrats. You can almost feel the anguish in Nolan Brown's post about this.
Bravo.
Pretty much, and once the checks have been requested and sent. If an abortion occurs, then we'll have lawsuits demanding the money be returned, as it was obviously not spent on the welfare of the child.
Considering how one sided the child support system in this country is, there is a snow ball's chance in hell, any woman who has an abortion would ever have to return the child support she got while pregnant.
What's more likely is the guy stops paying after the abortion, but because the court order itself didn't change his wages get garnished and his license is suspended.
By the time the court finds out there is no child he's lost his job, his car's been impounded, he owes thousand and thousands of dollars in fines and fees, and there's a warrant out for his arrest.
Yes. The woman gets an abortion and just never tells the state. So, the state keeps expecting the guy to pay. Good luck unscrewing that mess.
That is exactly how it would work.
The correct thing to do would be to challenge the child support in court, but still keep paying it. The court would likely award the father the support paid after the abortion, but wouldn't lift a finger to help him collect. Might fuck with her credit, but she doesn't care because she's already shacked up with her next baby daddy who pays all the bills.
Which is why it's also imperative for the guy to wrap it and not go bareback just because it "feels better," or at least pay for the Plan B the next morning after dumping his load in the chick.
No lie, a few years ago an ex-buddy of mine PM'd me on Facederp saying that he'd gotten drunk with this chick and they'd had an "oopsie." I told him, "well, if you weren't wearing protection, you better go get her a morning-after pill ASAP."
Yup. I never had a kid out of wedlock because I always wrapped the rascal.
If you read between the lines, though, what is really intended here is back-dating child support. Early in the pregnancy, it will be difficult to prove paternity. It will only be later that this happens.
So in practice what will actually happen is that in most cases, is if you have reason to believe you are the daddy, you do what you should do and help support your baby momma. If you have reason to suspect you AREN'T the baby-daddy, then you can dispute until such time as the baby is determined to be yours, knowing that you are going to have to pay back support.
I hadn't thought of it that way but I think you are right.
Gender equity justice, right?
Well, sex is risky.
What are the chances that they'll do a DNA test when the fetus is borne or aborted, and make the woman refund the money if the supposed baby daddy wasn't the daddy?
But what if the pending father demands that the birthing person get an abortion?
According to Pro-Life Power-Mad freak jobs.. The male nor female have any rights to their pregnancy... It's [WE] Power-Mad mobs decision!....
The woman's "choice" that feminists celebrated never referred to the choice of a woman to keep her baby in spite of intense pressure from her parents or boyfriend to procure an abortion. It only ever meant the choice to submit to their wishes and terminate its life.
The right wing, tea party, small government, hard line, pro-life republican state reps in my area are pushing for "welfare" for pregnant women.
Why they didn't think this would be a helpful ALTERNATIVE to abortions in the first case...
^BINGO...... I don't think the hypocrisy the right-wing shows in their 'abortion' stance could be any thicker... Right-wing National Socialism for precious 'unicorns'....
That is right. Anyone who thinks any man owes any responsibility to raise children he fathers is just a SOCIALIST. You called it dude.
Damn, you must've gotten a lot of poor girls pregnant because you hate the way condoms feel to be this passionate about men and women not taking responsibility for the lives they create.
^BOTH RIGHT....
Just because everyone's gotten use to using Gov-Gun threats to STEAL and Subsidize Women doesn't make it right...
So long as Women aren't OWNED by 'unicorns' or 'males' they can find their own way in life and own the decision they've made and the responsibility for them...
Only "Socialist" mentalities run around talking about 'those' people owe this person a living.
i.e. Once again; Rub a Pro-Lifer and out pops a leftard.
Are you the leftard that popped out of a pro-lifer?
Paying for the birth of the child you helped create is not welfare by any reasonable meaning of the term.
Is that like suing to FORCE a seed company to mow YOUR lawn because they planted it at your request?
Oh; Yep... 100% match.. Any more excuses to use to Gov-Guns to FORCE Women into being 'unicorn' incubators of the State?
You are absolutely terrible at this. The weird lady that dressed up with a string of baby dolls that she chewed on on the steps of SCOTUS was a more effective spokesperson
Welfare is paid by the state.
Men supporting the women they knocked up is called personal responsibility.
Only in the land where Women are OWNED by Men.
And maybe that is how it should be....
However enslavement like that usually gets frowned upon since the end of slavery.
Spaz alert.
A new report on federal firearm offenses shows that the vast majority involve illegal possession...
Laws that do nothing but create new criminals have value.
Maybe if places like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and a few others had not defunded their police and elected Soros backed DA's who refuse to throw anyone in jail for anything except maybe defending themselves against an attack by a criminal, actual dangerous felons would be in prison and we wouldn't have to worry so much about them having guns?
Law enforcement and taking dangerous people out of society by punishing them for their crimes; it is an idea so crazy that it just might work.
Peter Callaway is pissed that the new da might also crack down on gang smash and grabs and murders. Can't have a boshavik revolution without a destabilized society
The Texas Medical Association wants regulators to step in after hospitals reportedly refused to treat patients with serious pregnancy complications for fear of violating the state's abortion ban...
Uh-huh.
Yeah, I am sure that is happening all of the time. Sort of like all the poor gay partners who couldn't see their lovers in the hospital despite having a medical power of attorney. Just make up a good sounding lie and repeat it often enough and it will become established fact that only conspiracy theorists and right wing nuts don't believe.
I'm reminded of the story Reason ran a couple weeks ago (before RvW overturn, when Abbott's law being defended) where a woman was going to deliver prematurely and at risk for suffering a hemorrhagic event and, rather than proceeding through the delivery and treating any hemorrhaging as it occurred, they, supposedly, put her on the road to a hospital in CO.
Right. A pregnant woman showed up in the hospital and everyone from the candy stripers to the medical director said, "Get her back in her car and don't let the door hit her in the ass on the way out." with nary a lawyer to tell them that that action was far more legally clear cut than performing and abortion to save her. And, somehow, only the woman (and her husband) survived to tell the tale.
There is also that federal law that requires hospitals to treat anyone who shows up at their door. I am sure they all forgot that and just kicked a pregnant woman out the door. The story is so stupid.
In case it wasn't clear, I was being a bit facetious. It almost certainly, even generously, went more along the lines of:
OBGYN: "Your baby is going to be born prematurely. You can leave this hospital voluntarily and get an abortion that may prevent complications or you can stay, but you'll have to birth the baby. If any adverse circumstances arise, we'll do our utmost to prevent you from suffering any permanent harm."
MotherExpectant patient: "I want to abort the pregnancy."OBGYN: "OK, you understand that you're refusing treatment and that we'll have to discharge you on your own recognizance?"
Expectant patient: "Yes."
OBGYN: "OK, let me get the discharge papers together for you or your husband to sign..."
There's some nuance to your claim about the law requiring hospitals to treat anyone showing up at their door but, yeah, if the hospital can save a life and the patient (or their insurance) can pay, the hospital would be fucking themselves over by turning them away.
The problem with that story is that abortion at that stage of the pregnancy are far more risky to the woman's health than inducing labor. The claim that late term abortions are ever necessary for the woman's health is complete bullshit. Both labor and an abortion terminate the pregnancy and whatever risk to the mother the continuation of the pregnancy creates. Abortions at that late stage are significantly more risky to the mother than inducing labor.
I'd agree, undoubtedly, to 'generally at least as dangerous'. Regardless, as we saw with horse paste, even when it was sitting on the shelf and the doctor/hospital had proven safe methodologies for use, just because you're occupying a bed in a hospital doesn't mean the hospital is required to move heaven and earth to accommodate your fanciest wishes and you're free to go somewhere else if they can't.
Exactly. The story as told is a medical impossibility.
Delivery by C-section is far less risky than dialation and extraction
I'm sure the Texas Medical Association knows it's bullshit, I'm sure The Dallas Morning News knows it's bullshit, and I'm sure ENB knows it's bullshit, but they're all going to the bring it up at every opportunity until they're called out.
Of course, the story cites ectopic pregnancy again.
Any doctor or hospital that fails to treat an ectopic pregancy because of the abortion law should be sued into non-existence. Ectopic pregnancies are not viable pregnancies and they're life threatening if not treated.
Failing to treat an ectopic pregnancy because of abortion laws is malpractice. Doctors and lawyers both know these fall under every exception in every law in every state. So they're either incompetent to practice, or they're doing it on purpose. Either way, it's malpractice and everyone knows that.
Even then, see above, we've already seen these stories at Reason. I can't imagine a public hospital that would turn away a pregnant mother for fear of being culpable for an abortion rather than, per the law, waiting until it's pretty clear that the choice is abort or lose the mother relative to the culpability of turning away a pregnant woman who died en route to another hospital.
Doctors (and administrators) really suck at law and ethics.
If it's not a process for billing insurance companies, they don't know shit about it.
Nobody wants to ban procedures to save the mother's life from an ectopic pregnancy, except maybe some hardcore Traditionalist Catholics who probably also want to ban artificial birth control. That would be legally, politically, and just the normal kind of insane. The mother will die if no one intervenes to save her life. The embryo will die regardless of whether the mother receives medical attention. It isn't even and shouldn't be considered a type of abortion.
You, sitting in your armchair somewhere, know more than the Texas Medical Association what is going on among Texas doctors?
No, but he's not inventing hypothetical crises either.
Shitlib Mike sure went to that appeal to authority awfully fast, didn't he?
The government never lies.
Mike really does take those certified membership cards seriously.
TOP MEN!
I strongly believe that doctors are doing stupid shit.
I've read several of these articles now, and none of them have actually interviewed a lawyer from the hospital.
Hopefully that will change.
The Department of Education should not exist...
THIS IS LITERALLY FASCISM
Alinksy, is that you?
Alinsky died before there was a Dept. of Education. He also wasn't a leftist ideologue. He was a cold hard pragmatist.
...still pretending that food trucks are some newfangled nuisances that must be regulated out of existence...
Brick and mortar regulatory capture is old as time itself.
Back then it was cow dung and stick regulatory capture.
Poor Dee.
Good morning Peanuts! Remember how bad Trump was? Remember when I predicted over a year ago he'd go to prison "soon"? Well now I really mean it. My favorite Republican Liz Cheney has proved he masterminded an attack that was actually worse than 9 / 11.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
Walls. Closing. In.
First thoughts on the Child Support policy: It sounds like pure shit. I'll need to ruminate more on the consequences of it but my initial reaction is strongly negative. Ever hear of the words "perverse incentives?"
Its merits are not the point. It is never going to be enacted. Maybe some deep red state will do it but certainly not at the federal level. The point is to make the proposal and watch Democrats squirm over having to object to the opportunity of giving someone else's money to women. It is a political stunt. When you look at it for what it is, it is actually pretty smart.
I dislike political games. I disliked the Democrats poison-pilling criminal reform, I disliked it when they wouldn't even floor Rand Paul's Breonna Taylor bill. I dislike the games being played with the Equal Rights Amendment. I dislike the bullshit games they're playing with immigration where they refuse to address the problem so they can keep it an issue. And I dislike proposing shitty legislation just to "own the libs," from the other side as well.
It's shit.
I dislike political games.
That just means you dislike politics. I can't say that I blame you for that. The truth is politics is a game. It doesn't do you any good to be right, if you can't win elections. Winning and getting the power to change things is the entire point of politics. Being right is secondary to that since without winning it doesn't matter how right you are. So, politics when practiced well is always going to be about political gamesmanship and not about the truth and being right. Yeah, you hope to be right and better believe you are right. But, that is a different question than the politics involved.
Something, something rational voters.
Voters are rational. It is just what seems rational depends on what you perceive the facts to be. If two people don't agree on the underlying facts or assumptions, their actions will seem rational to themselves but totally irrational to the other voter.
Yeah, his statement needs fixing: Something, something
rational voterswell-informed electorate.Voters choose what feels right. And most feelings have little to do with facts, even fake facts. Tendencies to vote for candidates based on appearance (taller, better hair) or personality (who would you rather have a beer with?) don't require facts.
Again, this all seems sensible to the voter, but it is not rational.
What evidence is there that choosing by feeling is any worse than choosing by reason? I can point to about a half a billion bodies that are the result of the pursuit of "scientific Marxism" and whose murderers were dead certain that they were doing the right thing and could give the most elaborate and sophisticated reasoning for why that was so.
Indeed, those regimes were explicitly rational. Maybe even hyper rational. Being rational doesn't mean being correct, or consistent even.
First thought: This kind of thing is typically a matter of state law.
I had one mid on each side of ACA. The costs shot up a ton for the 2nd kid due to labs and worse health i strange policies due to aca compliance
I have no problem forcing the man to shoulder half of the out of pocket.
Man autocorrect butchered that.
Is that "a man" or "The Man"?
You had me at "child support" whether it's a born or unborn child.
The pandemic, vaccination policies, and a hot labor market play a role, as do "longer-term demographic trends … Less than one-quarter of young American adults are physically fit to enlist and have no disqualifying criminal record, a proportion that has shrunk steadily in recent years."
So I guess the through and detailed study showed no impact at all from the vaccine mandate or CRT or mandatory ignoring of biological science?
Those questions were not asked.
So, more "don't ask, don't tell"?
"But sponsors of the bill may have a hidden agenda"
"MIGHT POSSIBLY MAYBE HAVE A hidDeN aGeNdA... "
"which is why I tell people not to make these arguments, even in jest"
"IF THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THEY'RE HUMAN, THEN IT GETS AWKWARD WHEN WE KILL EM..."
Every pro-abort always manages to sound like a serial killer with very little effort.
Or one of Himmler's minions.
"...fathers have obligations, financial and otherwise, during pregnancy."
Begin the progressive anguish. On one hand, they are all about enabling lives without personal responsibility, but on the other hand men are evil oppressors, and pregnancy is the worst form of assault.
Maybe they will eventually realize that despite their utopian desires, at some point, someone, has to actually take responsibility and deal with the consequences of their actions.
Yeah, the person to take responsibility for their actions will have a penis and that's the problem. You don't know a lot of women do you? /half-sarc
"The policy guidance would extend Title IX's protection against sex-based discrimination in education to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Twenty states have sued over the proposed change."
Now we know where the first Title IX reeducation camps need to be.
"As stated in Ring's law enforcement guidelines, Ring reserves the right to respond immediately to urgent law enforcement requests for information in cases involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person."
Does that include deliveries from unapproved, dangerous vendors?
Amazon sharing information with whomever it wants is not a free speech issue? A private tech company does not have the authority to break its agreements with its users on a whim? What madness is this?
As you second sentence implies, it is more of a contractual issue than a free speech issue. Free speech issues typically involve the _government_ trying to constrain speech.
Whoosh! (Again)
SCROTUS says that sort of information is a "third-party disclosure" and not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Just like phone and bank records.
It's obviously bullshit, but the totalitarian law enforcement regime, especially in Justice and Treasury, rely on it.
Not to defend SCOTUS too vociferously but if you don't want the comings and goings of your porch disclosed, don't go the Big Box hardware store or the offending third-party's website, buy the device, install it or pay to have it installed, and connect it to the network.
I can understand for phones or webmail as they're just short of required to have and hold a job, attain medical service, and networked (both physically and socially) such that even if you do avoid the specific third-party you're still effectively giving your data up to the exact same people. But all the IoT stuff including Ring? Nah, just don't buy it and, if you do, don't connect it to your network. Admittedly, with Right-to-repair and contractual ownership being progressively interpretted as leases it's getting more difficult, but still, not buying Ring is still a very viable and feasible thwart.
I don't disagree with you (and don't use Ring myself) but the notion that, because I share private information with a single party, particularly one that is in the business of providing a service related to that private information, it should not necessarily mean that I am waiving all notions of privacy with respect to that information and the government.
You have the Volstead Act to thank for that, as amended by Prohibition's Portia, prosecutor Willebrandt.
The SF Chron claims to be a newspaper, gives about a quarter of the front page as a flag-pole for Newsom to run this up and see if anyone salutes:
"‘How do we define pro-life?’ Gavin Newsom wants to use conservatives’ talking points against them"
[...]
"During a speech in May, Gov. Gavin Newsom proudly said he has a “pro-life agenda.” ... How do we define pro-life?”..."
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-newsom-pro-life-17303709.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result
Gun restrictions and socialized medicine, according to the tin-pot dictator wannabe.
Tried it in May, got the Chron to hand over the front page in mid July; ain't seen a single salute for the asshole's New Coke yet.
I have been hearing the whole "we just need to take ownership of the language from the Right and reframe the debate" bullshit for over 30 years now. They can never admit that their policies are unpopular and in some cases these days insane. Nope. The ideology is never wrong. So, the problem must be the language we are using the sell the ideology. Yeah, that is it.
I think it first started with gun control. Gun control has always been a dead political loser in most of the country. Rather than understand why and maybe moderate their position, Democrats convinced themselves they could sell the same bullshit if only they put it in different language.
ownership of the language from the Right and reframe the debate" bullshit for over 30 years now. They can never admit that their policies are unpopular and in some cases these days insane. Nope. The ideology is never wrong. So, the problem must be the language we are using the sell the ideology. Yeah, that is it.
We're seeing this all the time with the Biden Administration. They are constantly saying that the "messaging" on inflation and gas prices needs to be fixed.
No, dumbfuck, the problem is the inflation and high gas prices themselves.
I sometimes think the only thing delaying the progressive program is the third of Americans who are immune from and even annoyed by language games.
I have been hearing the whole "we just need to take ownership of the language from the Right and reframe the debate" bullshit for over 30 years now. They can never admit that their policies are unpopular and in some cases these days insane. Nope. The ideology is never wrong. So, the problem must be the language we are using the sell the ideology. Yeah, that is it.
Now do the definition of "grooming".
chemfat standing up for his lefty boos again.
The definition of grooming is the same as it's always been. What's changed is that it's now official curriculum in some schools.
No it isn't. Conservatives are busy redefining it to mean "anyone teaching acceptance of homosexuality" whether or not it involves any graphic sex talk at all.
A stellar example of "I can't win the argument as stated, so let's change the language to one I can win, even if it's insane."
It's his sole modus operandi.
He's just imitating what his lefty neighbors practice.
Oh, so right-wingers haven't been having freakouts over Drag Queen Story Hour and calling them groomers and pedophiles. Right.
Drag queen story hour IS explicit grooming...
Drag queen story hour is absolutely inappropriate.
And the fact that it exists hurts gays and lesbians badly.
No they aren't. Your team is lying yet again.
Grooming never required graphic sex talk you stupid fuck.
Chejeff, people like you are really hurting gays and lesbians.
"The constellation of psychological manipulations and actions taken by a predatory adult, meant to reduce a child’s fears and inhibitions, as a prelude to sexual abuse or exploitation by the predator or his/her associates."
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/child+grooming
"Grooming can be sexual, romantic, financial or for criminal or terrorism purposes, and can target both children and adults. The common aspect is that a perpetrator manipulates a victim by building trust and rapport. The key to grooming is a power dynamic within the relationship: age, gender, physical strength, economic status or another factor."
https://theconversation.com/grooming-an-expert-explains-what-it-is-and-how-to-identify-it-181573
"Typically, the grooming process is slow. Predators move through different stages of grooming to build trust, create secrecy, and push boundaries with the ultimate goal of victimizing the child. Predators keep using these same stages after abuse has occurred to rebuild the relationship and maintain control:
1. The first stage is to identify a vulnerable child. Some risk factors for vulnerability are poor relationships with parents, a chaotic home environment, few or no friends, or a history of abuse.
2. The next stage is to gain trust and access. This stage is where the child gets special attention and feels accepted and understood. This stage may also be where the perpetrator begins a friendship with the parents to gain easier access to the child.
3. The third stage is to isolate the child and create secrecy. The goal is to make the child feel like they can’t talk about the relationship with others. Asking the child to keep secrets is a way that perpetrators gain the child's compliance and further isolate the child from others.
https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/mental-health/what-is-grooming-sexual-abuse
Stop giving Jeff ideas.
The key to grooming is a power dynamic within the relationship: age, gender, physical strength, economic status or another factor.
The funny thing is we, well Democrats used to, strive to defend against this power dynamic. Even if it's not grooming, somewhere between Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton the stance on sexual harassment fundamentally changed for some people. You'd think people who called out Romney for having binders full of women and raked Brett Kavanaugh over the coals because they wanted to believeallwomen would understand how dog whistles are supposed to work. Unless, of course, they were just fucking around with the linguistics and didn't give an actual shit about the abuse of power.
"You'd think people who called out Romney for having binders full of women"
Nah, he's one of the "good" ones now. His indiscretions for running against Obama were forgiven.
So tell us again how reading a book like "Heather Has Two Mommies" to kids is a prelude to sexual abuse or exploitation.
Does the book mention that Heather has two mothers, or does it graphically discuss how they like to bang donuts and eat pussy.
You're always trying to pull fast ones, aren't you.
Read it for yourself if you want.
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0763690422/reasonmagazinea-20/
No graphical depictions of sex of any kind. It is a children's story about a girl who has two moms.
So, pro-grooming book or not?
Homosexuality is abnormal. Using the abnormal as a reference point, especially when trying to INSTRUCT that the abnormal is not abnormal, is grooming children for a delusional perspective that will then be used to direct interpretation of normal hormonal and psychological development toward the abnormal.
You devious fucking weasel.
Your the one that made it about "Heather Has Two Mommies". Not me.
We were clearly talking about introducing sexual material to children and you're trying to play tricks by pretending it's all about Snow White and Heather instead.
As I clearly said to you, "Does the book merely mention that Heather has two mothers, or does it graphically discuss how they like to bang donuts and eat pussy."
If it were the latter, then fuck no, and incidentally it's the latter that's the topic at hand.
Quit trying to pull cheap little tricks, Jeffy.
We were clearly talking about introducing sexual material to children and you're trying to play tricks by pretending it's all about Snow White and Heather instead.
That IS the primary bone of contention here. No sane person seriously believes it is appropriate to talk to little kids about graphic sex acts. This is about discussion of any topic relating to homosexuality at all that is NOT a discussion of graphic sex acts. People like Nardz and Briggs think that that is the same as 'grooming' because homosexuality is 'abnormal'.
If a teacher says "sometimes two men or two women can fall in love and that's okay", should that discussion be banned in the classroom as "inappropriate sex talk"? Yes or no?
Again, your trying to reword and redefine what others have said here to what you want to answer, you fucking weasel.
And no, the conversation was actually about grooming as defined in those links I posted, through transgender ideology, maiming and psychological abuse.
YOU made it about homosexuality in general. Not Nardz and Briggs. They just played along and answered you.
Time to stop moving goalposts and time to stop lying, Jeff.
lol you don't want to discuss any issue, you just get your jollies at calling me names. you are such a loser.
you won't answer my question, you would rather just act sanctimonious about a non-issue.
you're a ridiculous little man.
"People like Nardz and Briggs think that that is the same as 'grooming' because homosexuality is 'abnormal'."
It is grooming. What the fuck is the teacher talking to prepubescent students about adult sexual relationships for?
" If a teacher says "sometimes two men or two women can fall in love and that's okay", should that discussion be banned in the classroom as "inappropriate sex talk"? Yes or no?"
Yes, and any teacher who brings it up should have the shit beat out of them by parents.
"lol you don't want to discuss any issue, you just get your jollies at calling me names. you are such a loser.
you won't answer my question, you would rather just act sanctimonious about a non-issue.
you're a ridiculous little man."
It's hilarious when you can practically hear the fat pedophile hyperventilating behind the screen.
Why do you need to proselytize homosexuality to 6 year olds, groomer?
Jeff tell us how schools don't have closets and aren't telling these students to keep discussions from parents.
Just because you ignore the actual facts of the conversation doesn't mean they don't exist.
The definition of grooming is well established. It is when an adult introduces children to sex and sexual ideas beyond what is appropriate for their age. This is bad because it gets children to normalize sex with the adult in their minds and be amenable to having sex with the adult who is grooming them. The adult is "grooming" them to have sex with them.
So, to give you an example, if a first grade teacher tells a child or children in his class about how wonderful anal sex is and how he has a boyfriend that he loves having anal sex with and they should not be afraid to try anal sex, the teacher is grooming those children.
I know you are often very slow on the uptake there Jeff, but I hope that I have explained this in a way that is simple enough and obvious enough for you to understand. Hopefully you do and you can thank me for my efforts.
"I have explained this in a way that is simple enough and obvious enough for you to understand."
Doesn't matter because he's too dishonest to acknowledge it.
Also busy jerking off at the moment.
So how about if a teacher says "sometimes two men or two women can fall in love with each other and that's okay"? Is that "grooming"?
Probably not, but it is very unlikely such a statement would be uttered in isolation. Whether it is grooming or not depends upon the context of whatever else is said.
Beyond that, it is perfectly appropriate for government schools or any school to set rules about what aspects of teachers' personal lives and especially their sex lives is appropriate for small children. It is not essential for first graders to know that a small portion of the population enjoys shoving their dicks up each other's asses anymore than it is essential that they know some people like to have sex with dogs or get sexual pleasure from pain.
Your statement may not be grooming but it is absolutely something that a school can tell a teacher they cannot say to their students. Kids, especially small ones, don't go to school to learn about varieties of sexual perversion. They have their entire adult lives to explore and learn about those.
So, the Florida "Don't Say Gay" law is so broad that it bans even discussion such as the above in K-3 classes.
And, of course, DeSantis and his minions like to refer to the law as an "anti-grooming" law.
So are they wrong to refer to the law in this way? I mean, if it's banning classroom speech that isn't actually grooming, why would they refer to it as an 'anti-grooming' law?
So, the Florida "Don't Say Gay" law is so broad that it bans even discussion such as the above in K-3 classes.
One sentence like "sometimes two men or two women can fall in love with each other and that's okay" is not a discussion. You're batting 2 for 2 at shifting the goalposts.
Yeah, there is no right to wave your freak flag to six year old kids. If you think there is, you are probably a groomer and should consider getting some therapy and asking yourself why you feel the need to advertise you sex life, whatever it is, to small children.
Only if you think being gay is a "freak flag".
No. me and pretty much the entire human race. Beyond that, people like you need to understand that as the country accepts more immigrants and becomes more Catholic, more brown, and more Muslim, the culture is going to necessarily change. One of those changes is almost certainly going to be the society no longer being as accepting of gays. White people like you are going to have to learn to accept that you no longer have the same influence over society that you think you are entitled to have.
Hollywood certainly does.
BTW - You realize that "I can make one sexual comment to the kids, why can't I make two?" comes across as a rather overt grooming tactic, right? You'd think the party of 'broken windows' and 'zero tolerance' would understand scope creep and Overton Window shifting, to the point that maybe you'd think they *do* understand it.
""I can make one sexual comment to the kids, why can't I make two?""
Is this that "slippery slope" thing that I've heard doesn't exist?
No Jeff, it bans INSTRUCTION not DISCUSSION. Early versions of the bill did say discussion, but that was altered by the time it passed. The bill is not as broad as you claim. The above, unless part of a lesson on homosexuality to third graders, would not be illegal.
http://laws.flrules.org/2022/22
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards"
Instruction vs. discussion is functionally the same thing in the classroom. If you support this Florida law, surely you wouldn't suddenly think it is okay for teachers to discuss "sexual orientation or gender identity" in the classroom just because they didn't write it down in a formal lesson plan, would you?
So mendacious.
Collectivistjeff should under no circumstances be allowed near prepubescent children.
Such issues aren’t part of the K-3 curriculum. A teacher that discusses this in class isn’t doing their job.
Such issues come up. Kids are more observant than you think. Kids can see that sometimes Heather really does have two mommies, or they see men holding hands, or they see two women kissing, and they ask the authority figures in their lives (parents AND teachers) what this means. The supporters of the Florida law want to treat anything relating to homosexuality as a taboo forbidden topic that should be off-limits, when in reality it is no different than discussing why a man & a woman hold hands, or why a man & a woman might kiss.
They want teachers to instruct kids that homosexuality is abnormal and taboo. That is indoctrination not education.
I never asked any of my teachers any questions on these topics, nor did any of my classmates.
Maybe you’re good with grooming because your teachers groomed you.
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1511446158249451521
Is David French a "groomer"? If so, why?
No. He supports groomers, however. French thinks that pervert men dressing as women and grooming small children in a public library is "one of the blessings of liberty". That doesn't make him a groomer. It does, however, mean that French supports grooming and thinks it is a good thing.
You should ask more questions like this. I am happy to explain the answers to you and maybe you will be a little less confused.
What are the drag queens doing to "groom" children at the library? Are they talking to kids about explicit sex acts? Of course not.
And so this is how your team is attempting to redefine the word "grooming". By pretending that talking to kids about LGBTQ issues in an accepting manner is 'inappropriate sex talk' that is equivalent to talking to kids about explicit sexual intercourse.
What are the drag queens doing to "groom" children at the library?
Yeah, a bunch of men dressed like women because it gives them sexual pleasure has nothing to do with grooming.
Next up Jeff asks "What are male strippers performing for children doing to groom them?"
Explain how Clarence Thomas was sexually harassing Anita Hill and you'll have more than sufficient explanation of how someone with the legal and psychological ability to consent to sex is grooming someone without.
And that's the dishonest part. Trying to equate drag queens reading story books to kids as equivalent to taking kids to male strippers. That's how you are trying to redefine the term 'groomer'.
Yeah, a bunch of men dressed like women because it gives them sexual pleasure has nothing to do with grooming.
It's not about "giving them sexual pleasure". It's about choosing a gender role that matches their gender identity. And no there is no necessary connection to "grooming" as the term is defined above. But you want to change that, to define "grooming" as acceptance of non-traditional gender roles.
The dishonest part is you taking all of the examples you have been given and pulling the most innocuous ones out only for examination.
No, the dishonest part is your team cherry-picking the worst examples as representative of the whole.
It's not about "giving them sexual pleasure". It's about choosing a gender role that matches their gender identity
LOL at this cope. Drag queens aren't dressing in drag because they identify as women. That's troons, who are mentally ill and think the world should celebrate their mental illness.
Drag queens dress in drag because it's a fetish. That's why they don't dress like normal women, they dress like some cartoon version of one. RuPaul is not a trannie, he's an extremely gay man that likes to play dress up. Troons make horribly bad attempts to dress and make themselves up like normal women, but fail because they'll never be women and never understand how women actually think or view themselves, as their very biology prevents them from doing so.
No, the dishonest part is your team cherry-picking the worst examples as representative of the whole.
Sort of like your assertion that the history of racism in America was never taught in schools before the 1990s.
You literally just did what Jesse accused you of Lying Jeffy.
What are the drag queens doing to "groom" children at the library? Are they talking to kids about explicit sex acts? Of course not.
And... 3 for 3. The definitions above don't explicitly state talking about sex acts and the actual real-world phenomenon from which the behavior is typified don't conform to it. As I, and others, indicated above, it's about developing trust and/or attaining a position of power and then abusing that power specifically sexually. Again, you'd think the people who raked Clarence Thomas over the coals for saying "Who put a pubic hair on my Coke can?" and then derided the GOP for going after Clinton over what happened between two consenting adults would understand this but, it seems that with all their linguistic tomfoolery, they don't really understand much of anything.
As I, and others, indicated above, it's about developing trust and/or attaining a position of power and then abusing that power specifically sexually.
So, according to you, a teacher telling kids "sometimes, two men or two women can fall in love, and that's okay", is an abuse of power in a sexual manner that conforms to the definition of 'groomer'. Is that your position? So what specifically is the abuse part?
Keep going Jeffy! You’re coming across as totally honest!
Why are teachers talking to their students about adult sexual relationships?
Why are there children's stories at all about men and women falling in love? Prince Charming falling in love with Snow White? Hmm?
ONCE AGAIN no one is seriously suggesting that teachers should be talking to kids about graphic sex acts.
But you have made your position clear. Teachers talking to kids about 'adult sexual relationships' involving a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman are fine as long as it's not graphic sex acts. Such as for example holding hands or kissing like you might find in children's stories. That's totally fine. But teachers talking to kids about 'adult sexual relationships' involving homosexuals is totally inappropriate and wrong EVEN IF it's the same type of conduct that is being discussed, because the job of teachers is to indoctrinate kids that heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality is abnormal and taboo. This will of course lead to any LGBTQ kids in the class at that time learning to internalize self-loathing, that they are weird abnormal damaged people for having these weird abnormal thoughts that they shouldn't be having. But that's okay, because homosexuality is a lifestyle choice being pushed by mass social psychosis and these kids need to be programmed into the heterosexual gender roles that they must be expected to adopt. Does that about sum it up?
"Why are there children's stories at all about men and women falling in love? Prince Charming falling in love with Snow White? Hmm?"
Because that shit's normal, you subhuman sack of cancer.
What's not normal is teachers having discussions about adult relationships with 6 year olds.
Do you need links to the drag queens at these events with last arrests for grooming children.
Introduction to kids is a primary event for groomers. They have to then normalize the relationship before grooming can begin. These events have allowed pedophiles to interface with kids. At the approval of their parents.
Gee, I seem to recall that a certain prominent Republican was convicted of child molestation. I guess from that single story we can conclude that all Republicans are pedophiles, right? I mean that is the angle you're going for here, right? If one drag queen anywhere gets in trouble with the law, that simply means that drag queens EVERYWHERE are a suspect group who must be treated as dangerous to kids. Isn't that right Jesse?
Gee, I seem to recall that a certain prominent Republican was convicted of child molestation. I guess from that single story we can conclude that all Republicans are pedophiles, right?
Considering the number of teachers who are actually convicted of child molestation in schools, are you REALLY sure this is the angle you want to run with?
Having "drag queen story hour".
This isn't simply "story hour" with a couple drag queens showing up to read to kids, the whole point is the drag queen not the story/reading.
introducing concepts involving sexuality to inappropriately young kids.
There was never a discussion of gay/bi/pan-sexualism among very young kids. In fact, teachers heterosexual activities also werent discussed with young kids.
The groomers (you) want that changed.
introducing concepts involving sexuality to inappropriately young kids.
Where you all define merely discussing homosexuality in an accepting manner as "inappropriate sex talk". That's the problem.
all sex talk is inappropriate with very young kids
Yes, like I told Jeff above, if you think it is necessary to talk about your sex life to small children, you probably need to ask yourself why that is and get some help because you are not in a very good place mentally or morally.
No one has ever said that the Disney movie Snow White is inappropriate for young kids because at the end Snow White and Prince Charming fall in love.
Why are stories like Snow White okay, but stories like "Heather has two mommies" inappropriate?
No one has ever said that the Disney movie Snow White is inappropriate for young kids because at the end Snow White and Prince Charming fall in love.
Not content to throw feminists under the bus in support of Lia Thomas, Chemjeff throws feminists under the bus for random, nameless pedophiles.
Look at how Jeffy redefines and rewords the conversation and argues against that.
We go from JimboJr's statement that "all sex talk is inappropriate with very young kids", to chemleft pretending that the issue is about a rather chaste kiss or two moms.
He's always trying to be tricky. He can't argue against what JimboJr actually said, so he has to twist it a bit.
Jeff inadvertantly makes a valid point. Take the lesbian kiss in the Buzz Lightyear movie. A whole bunch of parents were like "hell no I am not taking my kid to see that". Why is that? I mean if they showed Buzz and a female love interest kissing, no one would have batted an eye. So, why go crazy about two woman kissing?
The answer is that gay love and gay sex isn't normal. It isn't something that people consider appropriate for children in the same way hetro love is. Societal mores prevent anyone from saying it but the truth is that gay sex is a form of sexual perversion. It always has been and it always will be. And no society is over the long term going to accept it as normal and the same as hetero sex and love. Maybe that is a horrible thing but that is human nature and it isn't going to change.
Briggs Cunningham, 18th century:
"Let's just face it, Negroes are inferior to white Europeans such as ourselves. It always has been and it always will be. And no society is over the long term going to accept as normal the concept of Negro equality with whites. Maybe that is a horrible thing but that is human nature and it isn't going to change."
Maybe that is a horrible thing but that is human nature and it isn't going to change.
It's not a horrible thing. Not any more horrible than something like 12% of the world population being Negroid (~35% caucasoid, ~35% Mongloid, ~12% Australoid, 6% mixed-race). It's only horrible if you're somewhere between retarded supremacist and superstitious retard who thinks the world should be 50% black, 50% white, 50% asian, 50% gay, 50% straight, 33% women, 33% men, and 33% intersex.
No society over the long haul is going to survive if it prioritizes pseudo-religious idiocy and abject deference to minorities over the needs of the majority.
Being gay is illegal in large parts of the world. Trying to pretend gays are normal is something that western liberal white people do and not many others. Again, immigration is changing our society and it is going to become less accepting of gays and revert to the norm. You need to accept that and understand just because you are a white man doesn't mean you get to determine societal norms.
"We should base our normative standards towards homosexuality on the stellar examples of Saudi Arabia and Iran"
brilliant take there
brilliant take there
Sort of like you arguing that we should let in child molesters are refugees.
Yes, Jeff I know. only white people like you get to have a say in how society operates. I know you think that but thankfully it doesn't work that way and no matter how hard you wish, it won't change.
If you didn't want society to change and be something different from what it is when it was run by woke white people, you shouldn't have supported immigration. As it is, you did, and you just sound like an old white man screaming about the old days and all these damned immigrants who have screwed it up.
"all sex talk is inappropriate with very young kids"
Define "sex talk".
Telling kids how to perform a blowjob? Yes, that is inappropriate sex talk.
Telling kids that sometimes two men or two women fall in love and that's okay? No, that is not inappropriate "sex talk".
Your team wants to deliberately blur the distinction between the two, that teaching kids acceptance of LGBTQ individuals is no different than teaching kids about blowjobs.
My "team" isn't the one trying to pass off books like "Gender Queer" and "Lawn Boy" as important books for gay teens to read.
That is because heteros falling in love is normal and part of life. Gay love is not normal. It is a sexual perversion. Like all sexual perversions among consenting adults, it should be legal. But, just because people can do it doesn't mean it is normal or something that is appropriate for children. It is no different than telling kids how you love being whipped or peed on or whatever your kink is.
That is because heteros falling in love is normal and part of life. Gay love is not normal. It is a sexual perversion.
Aand there we have it. Acceptance of homosexuality = Endorsement of perversion = "Grooming". I didn't even have to say it, you did. That is what this supposed "anti-grooming" campaign is about. It is about smuggling in an agenda of homophobia under the guise of "fighting child sexual abuse".
No, just preventing your lefty allies from normalizing their mental illness.
The per capita statistics doesn't paint a pretty picture for the LGBT crowd.
Promotion of perversion is indeed grooming. Acceptance does not equal promotion. Acceptance is simply not going out of one's way to disparage, just as promotion is going out of one's way to normalize.
“It is no different than telling kids how you love being whipped or peed on or whatever your kink is.”
What’s the term for having sex with food? That’s Jeffy’s kink.
Can you get more dishonest in your argumentation? I'm not sure it is possible.
"Why are stories like Snow White okay, but stories like "Heather has two mommies" inappropriate?"
Because a man and woman being in love/a couple is normal. It is not something new to kids, it's a regular part of their lives and the world around them.
Homosexual couplings are abnormal. As such, you are extraneously introducing a new concept. The only reason to do so is promote that concept. If parents want to explain why little Timmy has 2 moms, they're free to do so. But it is not a teacher's place. The only appropriate response by a school official to a student if asked about the topic is: "ask your parents".
Honestly, watching Snow White shouldn’t be part of educational curriculum for little kids either.
It is a pretty dark story truth be told.
I don't know that it is, but at least it teaches the lesson to watch out for strangers trying to roofie you...
Nor should talking to 5 year olds about what kinks teacher has, who teacher chooses to fuck, and what genders they identify as or have relationships with.
Hetero teachers, through most of time, did not spend their time going on and on about their personal lives, who they sleep with, or their significant others. This is a new fad that completely comes out of the narcissism and need for validation of these later millennial and gen z mentally ill freaks have.
Its not enough that parents leave them to go about their business do what they want but 'just teach the kids'. They have to get validation in every way possible by indoctrinating these kids that their lifestyle really is legit, have the kids praising them for how heroic teacher is, and also post it on twitter/insta because they are so mentally ill and needy they honestly cant help themselves.
And this gets all the way back to the original point.
Team Red is trying to redefine the term "groomer" to mean "anyone promoting any discussion of gender roles or sexual identity that we deem to be 'abnormal' regardless if there is any 'sex talk' or not".
That wasn't the original point. That's what YOU wanted the original point to be because you couldn't argue against what was actually being discussed.
"Team Red is trying to redefine the term "groomer" to mean "anyone promoting any discussion of gender roles or sexual identity that we deem to be 'abnormal' regardless if there is any 'sex talk' or not"."
All such discussion is abnormal between adults and 5, 6, 7, 8 year olds..
Yes, it is indeed grooming.
Teachers shouldn't be talking about their tinder profiles and dates to an audience of captive young children either.
I think it first started with gun control. Gun control has always been a dead political loser in most of the country. Rather than understand why and maybe moderate their position, Democrats convinced themselves they could sell the same bullshit if only they put it in different language.
Yeah, it isn't really any different than calling gun restrictions "gun safety," unrestricted abortion "health care," or their neo-marxist utopian visions "democracy." It's the same old euphemisms and motte-and-bailey argumentation they've always done whenever they're arguing for what they know is actually a minority position.
"So, the problem must be the language we are using the sell the ideology. Yeah, that is it."
I've mentioned this before, but the more recent examples of this are their "Defund the Police" movement (which, they would explain, didn't mean they wanted to remove funding from the police) and "Black Lives Matter" (which, they would explain, doesn't mean other people's lives don't also matter *but you dare say that out loud, we riot*).
I also recall a case where Barrett said something about "sexual preference" during her confirmation hearings and the very next day, the Webster dictionary changes it the definition of "sexual preference" to make her look bad.
The people have the will, and means, the change the meaning of words right in front of our faces.
Yes they do. They think language is reality. And to some degree they are right. Language does determine thought to a large degree. The lack of language to express something can absolutely limit thought. And that is what they are trying to accomplish here; deprive people of the language necessary to think unapproved thoughts. I don't think they will be successful in that, but that is the game.
https://instapundit.com/531492/
NIH admits to funding gain of function research in Wuhan. The truth is pretty clear. COVID was created in a lab in China. The Chinese then most likely through usual communist incompetence then released the virus onto the world. The virus was released to the world by China and it's creation was likely funded by the United States government.
That is a set of facts so screwed up that they have to be true since no one could ever make up something that absurd.
The first order of business for the upcoming R congress should be hauling Fauci up and holding him accountable for his lies and crimes.
If they don't, he'll sneak away and will have gotten away with everything - https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/18/politics/anthony-fauci-retirement-plans/index.html
This story broke last October
Hot take, though
The story broke last fall and was dismissed. NIH is now admitting it was true. You might want to think a little harder before you respond next time. Just a suggestion.
it broke, Fauci and the dems said it was not true, and we have more proof that they lied
Socking again today, Shrike?
"Uvalde school shooting report finds 'systemic failures' in law enforcement response"
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/preliminary-report-investigating-uvalde-shooting-171726587.html
The "systems" which failed are commonly known as BALLS.
The school's hand sanitizers worked though.
“armed forces are experiencing large shortfalls in enlistments this year”
Add in the fact that the core of recruits, especially for the army & marines, are patriotic, conservative, rural/suburban youths who see no place fire themselves in today's woke military.
So much unlike those who joined the Confederate armies and blindly followed orders given by generals who knew the chance of success was very slim indeed?
I'm sure relying on refugees to take over the responsibilities that the nation's warrior class filled for generations will work out as magnificently for the US as it did for Rome.
The Drug War is officially back on in San Francisco. For the first time in years, people are being prosecuted for simply using drugs or possessing paraphernalia. It’s hard to fully comprehend the harm this will cause. I’ll try to lay it out below.
10 years ago, I would have had some sympathy here. Now, after seeing what a homeless-ridden shithole the Denver metro turned in to after pot was legalized, as well as other places, it's pretty clear that legalizing drugs hasn't really done anything other than enable addictive behaviors that are detrimental to social health and stability. I'm sure the state loves all the tax revenue from them, though.
Stuff like "tiny house communities" and other efforts at homeless containment, which is really where most of this drug use in the population happens, are nothing more than modern asylums with a different name and even less effective treatment. It's basically a city admitting "we're completely fucking stumped as to how to solve this issue that wouldn't get us raked over the coals by our neo-marxist Dem voting base."
“The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.”
― Harry Browne
Government is good at making housing unaffordable and shutting low skilled people out of work. Then it sets up homeless camps and says "See, if it wasn't for us you wouldn't have anywhere to sleep."
There has been a visible rise in homelessness across the country over the last ten years, and not just where they've legalized cannabis. So I really doubt there's a causational relationship there. Besides, weed has always been stupid easy to get, especially for people living on the fringes of society. And the illegal stuff is cheaper, so I'll bet most of these homeless people are not buying their smoke at the cannabis shop.
There has been a visible rise in homelessness across the country over the last ten years, and not just where they've legalized cannabis. So I really doubt there's a causational relationship there.
The problem went through the fucking roof in Denver after pot was legalized. People who were already massive drug addicts came to the city to indulge, and it also exacerbated all the other addictions and social degradation it causes.
Besides, weed has always been stupid easy to get, especially for people living on the fringes of society.
Sure, but this isn't just weed, it's all kinds of other drugs, too.
And the illegal stuff is cheaper, so I'll bet most of these homeless people are not buying their smoke at the cannabis shop.
Wasn't one of the promises that the "legalize it" crowd made that this would eliminate the black market for pot, along with a bunch of other promises like doing so would break the back of the Central American cartels and reduce crime? Not only have none of those promises actually come to fruition, the only thing that really came to pass is that the state managed to further enrich itself through licensing and tax revenue.
Marijuana is a gateway drug only because it's a gateway to the black market. Taxing the legal stuff to the point where it's twice as expensive as the illegal stuff leaves that gateway to the black market open. The black market is where people are introduced to cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, and such.
If the asshats in charge of legal weed weren't so fucking greedy and allowed the legal stuff to be cheaper than the illegal stuff, many people would stop opening that door to the black market and harder drugs.
You owe me two cents. Or one pre-1983 penny which contains two cents worth of copper.
Wasn't one of the promises that the "legalize it" crowd made that this would eliminate the black market for pot, along with a bunch of other promises like doing so would break the back of the Central American cartels and reduce crime?
Yes, and I warned about this at the time. Ending the WOD doesn't necessarily mean the cartels just decide to open up a bunch of Amazon shipping hubs. Ending the WOD *and* raising the minimum wage *and* giving 'free' healthcare *and* relaxing immigration laws is not a recipe for prosperity. Ending the WOD stands, and should, on its own merits but if you cut those merits off at the root, it doesn't stand at all.
One of the dumbest pretenses was that it would nerf the cartels--these people actually thought those "dumb Mexicans" would be too stupid to figure out other ways of raking in cash from crime, despite the fact that these are massive criminal enterprises with very strong hierarchies that have been operating for decades, and now effectively run most of Mexico and other Central American countries.
Cut back on the pot trade? No problem! We'll just increase our operations in human trafficking.
And oil. And avocados.
You can't totally legalize drugs. I once thought you could but I was wrong. That doesn't mean we should be kicking in doors and sending people to jail for decades on drug charges. It does, however, mean that you arrest people who sell and use drugs openly in public. If you want to sit in your house and get high, that is your business. If your idea is to live on the street, shoot up, and beg, then your sorry ass is going to jail. That is the way it has to be. You cannot just let people live on the street and do drugs. There is a middle ground between lunatic drug war and just letting the world go to hell and drug addicts ruin society. It would be nice if we could find it.
If marijuana was legalized properly, as in not taxed to the point where it's more expensive than black market weed, the number of people being introduced to hard drugs would drop dramatically.
That's because the guy behind the counter isn't going to say "Wanna try some heroin?"
You will never stop black market weed. Weed is too easy to grow and too easy to mix with other drugs to ever get people to stop growing it and buy the legit stuff. Also, bad weed can't kill you the way badly made pharmaceutical drugs can. So, people don't put themselves in any danger buying the black market stuff they way they do when buying say black market heroin or meth.
That's like saying there will always be a market for black market booze because making it is as easy as mixing sugar with yeast and any monkey can build a still.
But there isn't. Well, no thriving market that is. Why? Because it's cheaper and easier to just go to the store.
Pot that's taxed to shit might be easier but it sure isn't cheaper.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "mix with other drugs."
You can lace a joint with everything from speed to pcp.
Have you ever smoked weed? I'm guessing not. People don't do lace joints with other drugs. That's a myth created by drug warriors to make marijuana scary.
"That joint could be laced with other drugs! You never know!"
In reality very few people actually do that. It's impractical and wasteful.
It means package-dealing. Cop union propaganda will show a hippie smoking a joint AND knifing a grandmother to pay for another one. This helps justify murder and asset-forfeiture robbery. Christian National Socialist were good at creative depictions of jyooz.
I still think we could address part of the problem by setting up free drug camps in remote locations, with one-way transportation. Do-gooders could still bring food and blankets, and fulfill their empathy urges. I know this is a utilitarian argument, but it would be cheaper and more pleasant for the rest of us to fund the unlimited supply of free drugs, and let nature take its course.
This sounds like Central America or the Middle East except for the part where people go there in droves to assuage their empathy urges.
Move to the country. Nobody shoots up in front of my house.
I live in a town that enforces vagrancy laws. The bums move along quickly.
So that’s why you hate cops, they harassed you when you were homeless.
You can have legal drugs and make it illegal to live and poop on the sidewalks.
Glad that ENB lives in a world unaffected by inflation, so much so that it goes unmentioned at all. Meantime, for the rest of us....
You liking that gas price now? Gasoline up 50%+
How about food? Food cost is up 20%+ (my matzos are getting hammered, OBL)
How about natural gas for heating? Up 100%+
I am watching the disintegration of the lower economic deciles of America. WTF is ENB watching? She and people like her are completely disconnected from the lived experience of lower middle class, and poor Americans. They are getting crushed.
The foundation needs to pay for a trip to flyover country, so all the staff can get out of their little blue bubbles for a couple of weeks.
ENB took a trip home to OH. Didn't learn anything. The Foundation needs to save the money on trips to flyover country, fire the "You can take the girl out of the Bustle but you can't take the Bustle out of the girl" writers, and get some that can actually reason *drink*.
Both she and the very strange-looking creature she claims to be married to are nothing more than low level attack dogs for the regime.
That's why both of them will be sobbing hysterically like the little bitches that they are in about 113 days from now.
“Even when they’re awash in misery like they are at present, the Democrats are working feverishly on conjuring up new ‘anomalies’ that can be introduced into the electoral process. They never lose focus. I imagine them working with a combination of computers, cauldrons, and cult labor minions whose eyes have been glazed over since the first time they got stoned from an Obama speech. All day. All night."
What Nefarious Trickery Will Democrats Stoop to In November?
All Republican candidates need to be outside the margin of magic mail-in ballots.
The pro-choice folks are going to be regretting challenging the Mississippi abortion law for a long, long, time.
They aren't capable of regret. They blame the christofacist catholic SCOTUS justices for Roe, and not their own radical insistance on abortion without limitations.
They regret nothing because they're never responsible for anything. It's always someome else's fault.
They regret nothing because they're never responsible for anything. It's always someome else's fault.
In David's "The Death of Marat," he actually had Marat holding a letter that said, "Given that I am unhappy, I have a right to your help."
What a succinct fucking way to embody the left-wing ethos of entitlement as it's been for nearly 250 years, and it was identified almost from the very beginning, ironically, by someone who fully supported it.
I didn't know that about that painting. "The Death of Marat" is one of the most evil works of art ever created. It makes a heroic figure of Marat. Marat was a first class murderous piece of shit who spent his time sicking the Paris mob on innocent people. Charlotte Corday was a hero of humanity for killing the bastard.
David is one of my favorite painters. Some of his works like the "The Oath of the Heroti" is just astounding. But God were his politics awful.
They regret nothing because the goal is to perpetuate the abortion issue for political gain.
The pro-choice folks are going to be regretting challenging the Mississippi abortion law for a long, long, time.
They will hate the outcome, but they will never connect it to a strategic litigation error.
The only strategic errors they ever admit to are "messaging failures" to explain hostility to their own policies once implemented, with strong undertones of "Gosh darn it, we once again underestimated the power of far-right racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Nazi propaganda to turn people against our radically progressive legislative and regulatory agenda that intellectuals all recognize is best for them."
Pick up on the Prophet Mohammed here, who Sees, Hears and Knows all future thangs.
Fuck Pedo Pete Brandon
The Mississippi pro-abortion activist Laurie Bertram Robert's argument against child support during pregnancy is not so much that it is a wrong notion in itself. Rather, it is that the very concept undermines the argument for the result she wants. How is that a position which deserves any respect? It is an utterly crass, agenda driven and unprincipled position.
Yup.
Proof they care more about ideological warfare than about the effects their policies have on real people.
By amending federal law to say that child support is owed during pregnancy, the Unborn Child Support Act could help establish that legal personhood begins at conception—a change that could have implications far beyond child support.
It's incredibly stupid, but if that's what the people want then that's the appropriate way to get it. I hope they get it, just for the beautiful Great Moments In Unintended Consequences video that will give to the world.
Agreed! What I've not seen mentioned here yet is IVF, In Vitro Fertilization. The "Team R" folks are now claiming that each frozen clump of cells has a "soul" or "human rights" or some such? There have been couples who've put "souls on ice", then broken up, and she gets impregnated with one (against his will, post-breakup). Legal fights of course... Now that "the law" will say that they DO have "souls" etc. ... These things will get only worse! Post-breakup, she'll sue for "child support" for ALL of the frozen souls, for ALL of the time that they are frozen! You may NOT throw them out, of course, 'cause that's murder!!!
“If Roe is overturned, the ripples could affect IVF and genetic testing of embryos, experts warn.” https://www.statnews.com/2022/06/06/roe-v-wade-preimplantation-genetic-testing-ivf-clinics/ Anti-abortionists just LOVE the babies SOOO much, that parents with serious genetic defects will now chose NOT to have babies at ALL! Also note that the freezer(s) at IVF clinics sometimes fail, embryos thaw out unexpectedly, and are thereby “killed”! In the new regime of things, prepare for the finger of blame (“murderers!”) to be pointed at the utility companies and manufacturers of freezers and back-up generators! The lawyers will now make YOU, the consumer, pay a LOT more for these things!
https://familylawyermagazine.com/articles/embryos-in-divorce/
Thank you!
Good observation, and one which Jon at constitutionalism.blogspot has warned about.
Child support for the unborn. Just another day another chapter in the GOP saga of how to lose a mid term by convincing voters you are off your collective rockers.
Totally not concern trolling.
More! The GOP needs to jail every female suspected of having had sex. Call it protective custody--until after the next election or repeal of the 19th Amendment, whichever can be bought or Anschlussed first.
https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/1549037497606295552?t=pcGZlq6nM178pWHYtnhV_w&s=19
Under Biden, there's been 3.25M unlawful migrant crossings at the US southern border. As a state, that would rank as the 31st largest state by population, ahead of Iowa & behind Utah. At the current pace, we can expect +9M illegal migrants during Biden's term. @marcthiessen
[Link]
Judge blocks Biden administration's Title IX guidance.
I do believe the pendulum may be swinging.
LOL
https://twitter.com/perrybaconjr/status/1549029899020771329?t=abwbWFmy9BgRf40zMeAZAw&s=19
High inflation. Manchin and Sinema. Some of his own mistakes. But in my view, one of the biggest challenges for Biden has been facing a mainstream media looking to "balance" its anti-Trump coverage from 2017-2020.
[Link]
If anything Manchin and Sinema have helped to save Biden from himself. Can you imagine how much worse things would be and how much more unpopular Biden would be if he had managed to actually pass things like the Green New Deal?
I don't think the regime really cares
You're 100% correct.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/bidens-incompetence-is-the-only-thing
This is another example of what may be the saving grace of the Biden administration — the complete incompetence of the Biden administration. In this case, the idea was so repugnant and antithetical to America that the DGB was dissolved almost as soon as it was created (especially when measured in government time). Americans who voted for Biden voted for a ‘return to normal’ with the ‘adults back in charge’, not for somebody who would attempt to fundamentally transform the United States of America.
And while inflation is devastating families across the country, we have to remember that it could have been much, much worse. Before Biden was even admitting inflation was a problem, he wanted to spend trillions more on his “Build Back Better” Act. It was, once again, simple incompetence that stopped Biden’s plan, as he was unable to convince even members of his own party to support the bill. What would inflation look like right now with another couple trillion dollars raining down on the politically connected?
And while Biden continues to claim that passing BBB is the key to stopping inflation (talk about malinformation!), it seems that everybody else in DC knows the idea is dead in the water, especially with midterms really ramping up.
Little did I know that when I asked a woman to go camping with me I was threatening to impregnate her then abort the fetus. Thanks, TikTok.
Amazon answers about Ring surveillance.
Dont buy spy devices from megacorps in bed with the gov and then put these devices in your home.
How hard is that to understand?
I don’t think anyone writing or reading this snippet understands the first thing about what has happened here.
RING does not spy on you, it shows your front steps and a portion of your sidewalk. What it does show is the street and the front of the neighbors houses. If there was a drive-by shooting or arson, the Ring across the street will have probably captured it without giving away anything about the owner or their private business
If I had Ring, it would record every visitor, including the ones I invited. It would also record when _I_ left the house and returned, how often I walk the dog, when she barks and runs around the yard, when I mow or trim the hedges, etc. It would record every delivery, including groceries, meals from restaurants, UPS packages, and the USPS mail carrier.
_And_ it would give up all that data to any cop capable of making up a good story. The video recordings are not under my control. Even if Ring tightened it's standards and never voluntarily released anything to anyone but me, under the Third Party Doctrine any government agency can subpoena all my files held by anyone else, and even forbid them from telling me the files were subpoenaed.
What abortion code words can tell us about online activism.
You had me at "The Atlantic".
What a pile of trash that thing is today.
Fifteen years ago I had a subscription. Today you couldn't pay me to read that DNC propaganda rag.
It followed the Iowahawk trajectory:
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
#lefties
Yep
Atlantic currently owned by the widow of Steve Jobs, a crazed far left activist.
Absolutely. It is every a lefty propaganda outlet as the NYT and Wapo, but for people who want the veneer of "high brow"
As the NYT and Wapo are every bit as much a lefty opinion blog as huffpo, salon, and dailybeast with the veneer of "news"
Land acknowledgment policies are at the center of a lawsuit involving the University of Washington.
While I was visiting Tuscany, at a restaurant I loudly proclaimed my acknowledgement that we were occupying the rightful land of the Sabines before the meal started.
Everyone clapped and my eight year cried.
What about Neanderthals?
"The Department of Education should not exist," said Betsy DeVos, the former secretary of the Department of Education.
She is likely the best of all the Trump non-judiciary appointees.
Even Reason had a few nice things to say about DeVos. All the while ignoring the fact that literalhitlerorangeman gave her the job.
The predditors running reddit just banned the use of the word "groomer". chemjeff nuts in his sweatpants.
Anti-LGBTQ+ ‘groomer’ slur banned on Reddit in bid to tackle hate speech: ‘Your move Twitter’
Reddit has become infested with the worst of the lefty authoritarian types, with the worst of those becoming the mods.
Are you offended that you can't go around calling people "groomers"? Also, is not Reddit a private company that can set their own rules for comments?
Yes I am offended. Some people are groomers. If you say I can't point that out, you are telling me I can't tell the truth. And being prevented from telling the truth is offensive.
Do you like lies so much that you think preventing people from telling the truth is a good thing? Does the truth offend you that much?
"Groomer" is a euphemism for something else. I really don't know what it means as everyone using it in some strange manner. Luck calling people you don't like "cucks", it doesn't mean anything except you're signalling your alt-right bona fides.
It is not a euphemism at all. I know exactly what it means and so do you. If you didn't, it wouldn't bother you so much. Moreover, who the hell are you to claim what euphemisms can be used?
Then those people will use another word and this will do nothing at all..........
Okay groomer
Okay groomer
Considering how many troons ended up as tranny jannies on reddit boards, it's not really a surprise that the company would want to further enable their deviance.
Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean that you have to agree with them doing it.
Technically it's a slur against the Q and the +
But only because they are groomers
It's a slur against the T-MAP gender and sexual minority that cannot be tolerated in the progressive society of the future.
The only people offended by the word "groomer" are ... groomers
Correct
What do I call the lady who brushes and cuts my dogs fur?
Seems it's too hard to prove a bum in San Francisco was doing the adverse bum things that city's become notorious for, and the penalties are too light, so they need to gin up drug charges.
Being a bum should be enough.
Living on the street? Pooping in the bushes? Shooting up in the park? Sorry you gotta go man.
Nope, we're not putting you in jail for drugs we're putting you in jail for being a bum.
Also, to be clear,
bums should not be put in jail just for being a bum.
They should run out of town instead.
How the hell do you prove who the father is without a tissue sample to do an genetic analysis? Does the mother really know she's pregnant on day one of the pregnancy? So much in this bill is ripe for brickbatting.
Bills not thought through are not thought through. Just saying.
You can sample ammonitic fluid. Thousands of prenatal dna tests are done every day.
Look:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=prenatal+dna+test&t=brave&ia=web
Hell, Walmart even sells the test kits.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Choice-DNA-Testing-Prenatal-Paternity-NIPP-before-Birth-DNA-Test-1-Father-Mother/745740417
So that's available on the day of conception? Really? Don't you at least need implantation into the uterus and development of the placenta?
"So that's available on the day of conception? Really?"
I see Brandybuck has adopted the Jeff technique of completely ignoring what was actually said, and moving the goalposts so he doesn't look like an idiot.
Your claim was that you can't test for paternity "without a tissue sample to do an genetic analysis", which is obviously baloney.
Fetal support could be awarded retroactively based on non-invasive paternity tests or other traditional means of determining paternity. Routine blood testing of the mother can now detect fragments of fetal DNA. Doctors can figure out within a few days when most babies were conceived. I think "conceived" in this case would mean fertilization, which occurs when the fetus is about two weeks old by standard counting. Week 0: Last period. Week 2: Egg is fertilized. Week 3: Embryo implants in womb and begins to secrete hormones to alter the mother's reproductive system. Week 5: Uh oh, I'm late. Week 6: proposed cutoff for abortion in some states.
> I think "conceived" in this case would mean fertilization, which occurs when the fetus is about two weeks old by standard counting.
Well that places you OFF the reservation for many pro-lifers, who consider life as starting when the sperm impregnates the egg (what biologists call "fertilization").
Fuck Joe Biden.
113 days.
The child support issue is an interesting one. It sort of gives lie to the underlying argument for child support. The underlying argument has always been that the payments are to provide for the needs of the child. But, in this case, it's hard to argue that there is any unique needs for the child independent of those of the mother.
And this raises a question. If you support the notion of legal abortion, should there be a means for fathers to disclaim paternity, a legal and financial equivalent to abortion? If you're going to claim to believe in equality between the sexes, it's pretty hard for me to make a case with a straight face that equality is served by a woman having full authority to discontinue the consequences of pregnancy and a man having full legal and financial responsibility for her decision.
No one, male or female, should be forced to be a parent. A man who impregnates a woman should have no responsibility for supporting her offspring unless he has agreed to do so by marrying her or by other contractual arrangement.
Unless she raped him, or he was so bonehead ignorant that he didn't realize heterosexual intercourse can sometimes result in reproduction, in which case he was too mentally handicapped to be able to consent, in which case she statutorily raped him, nobody forced him to be a parent.
Should men be able to demand she terminate the pregnancy? Should men be able to demand that the child be surrendered for adoption? If not, then the choice is entirely the woman's, and the man is being forced to assume responsibilities of being a parent. The man should have the same choice the woman has. Sexual equality.
The truth is that the needs of the child and the needs of the custodial parent, whoever it is, are indistinguishable. Money is fungible and children can't own property or spend money for themselves. Their parents or guardians do that. The law has always understood that. That is why there isn't a remedy for when a custodial parent takes the child support and spends it on things that have no relationship to supporting the child.
You've just made a terrific case for getting rid of child support.
And, while money if fungible, marginal costs aren't.
I don't see that as a case for getting rid of child support. Just because the mother might not spend it correctly, doesn't mean you can duck out of your responsibility for caring for the child you created through your own choices. Saying I made a case against child support is like saying your druggie brother in law taking the money you gave him and spending it on drugs rather than the rent is a case against all charity to anyone.
Saying I made a case against child support is like saying your druggie brother in law taking the money you gave him and spending it on drugs rather than the rent is a case against all charity to anyone.
Well, it sure as hell makes the case against mandating that you give your druggie brother-in-law rent money, doesn't it? What you're arguing here for is a legal mandate that the father provide financial support for the child. In this case, the mother is operating as the agent of the child. Saying that one party has a responsibility to provide financial support, but the agent of the other party is free to abscond with that support is essentially legalizing embezzlement.
No it doesn't. You had nothing to do with your brother in law's condition and are thus under no obligation to change his situation. You did, however, create the child that now must be supported. No one made you fuck some broad. You chose to do that yourself and tough shit if you don't like living with the consequences of that.
But, that's where your white knighting falls on its face. No one made her spread her legs. Nevertheless, as a result of both parties' choice, the woman became pregnant. It's not something that the guy "did" to her. It was a mutual decision (obviously barring rape). But, then you want to apply a double standard. The guy is both legally (which I object to) and duty (which I don't) to provide for the resulting child. The woman? Not so much. In fact, you're arguing that if she decides to spend the support that the guy is legally required to provide for the child on purses or nights out on the town, it's a big, fat, "Oh well" for you.
Sorry to have to break this to you, Briggs, but no matter how much you white knight to foist all responsibility on to the fathers, they still aren't going to have sex with you.
Men don't create children. Women do. Men can't decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or give up the child to be raised by others. Women have those choices. So, the man has no responsibility to support the child unless he voluntarily assumed that responsibility by marrying the woman or otherwise contracting to do so.
No woman is under any obligation to save your dumb ass by having an abortion. To assume that her not having an abortion means you are no longer responsible for the pregnancy is to assume she has some kind of obligation to do so. She doesn't.
That's my point. It's her choice, therefore her responsibility.
The government has no place forcing child support payments on anyone.
"The government has no place forcing child support payments on anyone."
The government does if the man was married to the mother, or otherwise contracted to assume responsibility prior to the pregnancy. Otherwise, no.
i'll grant you the contract bit but marriage shouldn't be a government concern either, and it certainly should not be unilaterally deciding what your marriage entails contractually.
But it does now, and everyone knows that, so married men should be required to support their wives' children unless and until that changes.
Fertilized ova support isn't child support. Republican National Socialists, like their German Positive Christian precursors and Southern Democrat christianizers of heathen "property", struggle to extend the jurisdiction of the Political State into the actual insides of an individual person--at gunpoint.
Less than one-quarter of young American adults are physically fit to enlist
I wonder how much of that is due to psychiatric drugging of boys.
and being told that fat is beautiful
Boys? You mean X’em. What is this, the early 2000s?
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/iran-nuclear-bomb-claims-technical-ability-to-build-israel-us/
Can I just take a minute here as a gay and Black man who is GOP Proud like Caitlin snd Milo to remind people of the brilliance of Trump’s get tough with Iran nuclear policy. I mean, look at its fruits (pardon the term): we had a binding nuclear treaty with a country to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon, we abrogated that treaty, and then let Iran build its own nuclear weapon. I mean, what a boon for the Iranian missile and nuclear industries!! Wow! Another (of course, unheralded by the defunct Mainstream Media) accomplishment of the GOP and it’s adherents in the libertarian Mises alliance.
We had a joke of a treaty that did nothing but pay Iran billions of dollars that they then used to pay their security apparatus and stay in power all in return for a meaningless promise not to build nuclear weapons that ended in 2025 anyway.
Literally nothing you said here is the truth. Nothing.
"Can I just take a minute here as a... Black man"
You could take a minute to stop being racist.
Republicans seek Gov-Gun THEFT for their 'unicorns'.....
Rub a Pro-Life Republican and out pops a Leftard.
One question for Pro-Lifers I have is if you are capable of reproducing but refuse to, is that considered an abortion in thought ?
No why the fuck would it be? I am incapable of going home and burning down my house. Is that an arson in thought? What the fuck kind of sense does that make? You can't kill other human beings for your convenience. That is really all there is to it.
Unless they are doctors (see Army of God snipers and assassins) or women seeking escape from enslavement by superstitious collectivism (see coathanger abortions, Lebensborn and Hitlerjugend)
It is God's Will that every sex act result in a birth.
This secular progressive "all anti-abortion arguments implicitly stem from wild-eyed religious zealotry, no matter what rational arguments are explicitly cited in favor of the pro-life position" trope is getting old.
They keep getting dumber and dumber, and think they are brilliant
All anti-abortion arguments implicitly stem from wild-eyed religious zealotry, no matter what rational arguments are explicitly cited in favor of the pro-choice position.
This question suggests you have never had an actual discussion with a pro-life person.
Pro-lifers aren't maniacally pro-natalist. They just think existing babies in the womb have a right to be born and not be killed because of how small or premature they are or where they happen to be naturally located during the early stages of their development.
And then you balance that against some consideration of the rights of them other person deeply involved in the situation?
Only one persons literal, not metaphorical, life hangs on that consideration.
Person is a constitutional noun that does not refer to fertilized ova.
"Let me pretend that you're retarded for a minute" - t. NoVaNick
420 comments! Woo hoo! cough cough
Like that flag house where the producers of Homeland exposed Alex Jones' shillery.
First, the slippery slope argument is not compelling.
Second, without knowing the full text of the bill, I can at the very least say that the idea is a good one. It takes two people to create the baby, and both people should be responsible. The onus should not fall solely on the mother to finance the pregnancy and birth.
You both consented to an act with associated risks, and thus accepted the risks. You are both to accept personal responsibility when those risks come to fruition. Not your baby (by killing it). Not society (by subsidizing your risky choice). Not only the mother (by virtue of the father skipping out financially). This is a perfectly libertarian position.
When both parties are subject to the responsibility of their actions, they will in turn be more careful. If they still take the risk, then responsibility should be evenly divided amongst them.
So the original platforms--prior to prohibitionist, televangelist and national socialist infiltration in wave after wave--were NOT libertarian. Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart, not Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein, are the intellectual roots of the Libertarian Party. Nice try, sockpuppet!
You play you pay.
Born in the fifties my father drilled in my responsibility. I fucked up (so to speak) and paid for an abortion I later regretted. I stayed with her and later we rabbited up the game to 4 children. My only regret is the abortion which if gone to term would have forced my personal growth way sooner, made me a better person and made me a lot more money.
Christianofascist shills are multiplying in the commentariat like germs on a Petri dish.
The People's Republic of California, in 1997, charged me child support for my unborn child, because my ex-girlfriend was on welfare.
This is not a new thing.