House Passes Bill Declaring Right to Contraception
Plus: Supreme Court approval drops drastically, truckers protest California gig-work law, and more...

Update: The bill passed the House 228-195.
Congress moves to establish a right to birth control. A new bill in the House of Representatives aims to protect access to contraception. The Right to Contraception Act declares that "a person has a statutory right…to obtain contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and a health care provider has a corresponding right to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception." The House is scheduled to vote on it today.
Like another new measure (the Respect for Marriage Act) aimed at codifying the legality of same-sex marriage, the Right to Contraception Act comes in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Justice Clarence Thomas suggesting the court should revisit opinions on same-sex relationships and birth control.
At present, it seems pretty unlikely that the Supreme Court would revisit Griswold v. Connecticut—the 1965 case in which it recognized a right to access birth control—and highly improbable that any state would attempt to ban contraception entirely. But it's not inconceivable that states might try to prohibit certain types of birth control (like emergency contraception), restrict access for minors, say pharmacies don't have to fill prescriptions, or things like that.
And if the Food and Drug Administration approves applications for over-the-counter birth control, some states may try to keep contraceptives prescription-only.
Which means the Right to Contraception Act may be a good idea, even if it feels a tad bit performative.
Reason's Scott Shackford wrote about the Respect for Marriage Act:
While I still believe it's very unlikely that this current Supreme Court is interested in rethinking Obergefell, it's nevertheless a good idea for lawmakers to affirmatively pass legislation to confirm same-sex marriage recognition. If the public wants same-sex marriage to be the law of the land, and polls indicate that's genuinely now what most people desire, it's supposed to be lawmakers, not the Supreme Court, who decide what the contours of it should be.
This probably holds true for the Right to Contraception Act as well.
And the bill as introduced seems to do a good job of keeping its mission tight—avoiding common Democratic tendencies like conflating a right to access something with a right to have it funded by the government or covered by health insurance.
In fact, the bill explicitly states that its provisions "shall not be construed as requiring the provision of specific benefits" under "group health plans or group or individual health insurance coverage or coverage under a Federal health care program."
What it would do is say that authorities can't impede people's right to contraception via "any limitation or requirement that…expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented singles out the provision of contraceptives, contraception, or contraception-related information; health care providers who provide contraceptives, contraception, or contraception-related information; or facilities in which contraceptives, contraception, or contraception-related information is provided; and (2) impedes access to contraceptives, contraception, or contraception-related information."
To enforce the law, it would authorize both the federal government and individuals to bring civil lawsuits "against any State that violates, or against any government official…that implements or enforces a limitation or requirement" impeding birth control access.
If the law passes, it will be interesting what is considered an impediment. Currently, only a few states allow birth control pills to be prescribed by a pharmacist and obtained on the spot; many require a visit to a doctor on an annual basis. Would such rules impermissibly impede access?
FREE MINDS
Public opinion about the Supreme Court has shifted dramatically since last year. In a new poll from Marquette Law School, just 38 percent of respondents say they approve of the current Court—down from 60 percent last year. This year's poll was taken between July 5–12 and involved 1,003 adults. "The Marquette poll, like others released since the decision came down, finds that a broad majority of Americans oppose the decision to overturn Roe, 64% vs. 36% who favor it, a divide that has not shifted much in the wake of the ruling," notes CNN.
FREE MARKETS
Truckers protest gig-work law:
California's third-busiest port shut down some of its gates and marine terminals for a third day Wednesday as truckers protesting a gig-work law that could take 70,000 drivers off the road blocked access to the operation.https://t.co/DR5Q7OvSVA
— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) July 21, 2022
QUICK HITS
• A new study sheds more light on long COVID. Published in Scientific Reports, it "found that 23% of people who had coronavirus infections between March 2020 and March 2021 were still reporting symptoms up to 12 weeks later," reports the Los Angeles Times. The study "found no relationship in its sample between long COVID and age, gender, race or preexisting health conditions including cancer, diabetes, hypertension and heart disease," but did find long COVID more highly correlated with obesity and with certain symptoms (sore throats, headaches, and hair loss).
• Reason's Ron Bailey looks at President Joe Biden's Wednesday climate change speech.
• The January 6 committee hearing will air in prime time again tonight (starting at 8 p.m. Eastern time) and provide a minute-by-minute account of what former President Donald Trump was doing during the Capitol riot.
• A federal court says Georgia's six-week ban on abortion can take effect immediately.
• Australia charged a woman over $1,800 for mistakenly importing half of a Subway sandwich into the country.
• Tesla is selling off 75 percent of its bitcoin holdings. (See also: Can bitcoin become untraceable?)
• Abortion will be on the ballot in Kansas:
This the biggest immediate electoral fight over abortion rights and choice in the country, and it's happening in two weeks. https://t.co/WTikMRLfN3
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) July 20, 2022
• Tennessee is declaring war on the antidepressant tianeptine.
• House Democrats have a new court-packing scheme.
• Read the real Romeo and Juliet, not the kid-friendly version, suggests Sarah Skwire.
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
Congress moves to establish a right to birth control.
The Founders never intended you to raw dog her.
It's so fucking retarded. All they had to do is allow it to be sold over-the-counter like every other country.
But making it a "right" is going to mean Catholic health plans will be a forced to pay for it and other mandate stupidity.
Their goal is controversy for political points.
Their goal is controversy for political points.
+100000000000000000000000000000000
I made $30,508 in only five weeks operating part-time proper from my apartment. When I misplaced my final commercial enterprise I were given worn-out proper away and fortunately I observed this task on line and with that I am capable of begin reaping masses proper thru my house. Anyone can obtain this pinnacle degree profession and make extra cash on line by:-
.
See Here:>>>> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
Political donations.
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (neh-61) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://netcash94.tk
as predicted, they purposely made it a poison pill so R's will vote it down and they can point and shreek "they wont let us have abortions OR birth control!!! Wah!!!"
Predictable, telegraphed
Yeah, it's a "gotcha" game.
Remember when Reid and Pelosi were demanding clean bills under Paul Ryan? It is pure theatrics.
Preventing child birth and gay marriage are 2 of the least important issues of the day... so obviously Reason is obsessed with them as a means to distract from the left's destruction of our standards of living and globalist totalitarianism ruining the world.
We shall not mention the failures of global policy here.
Food shortages around the world ate to local.
Are to local.
Are too local?
Condoms are over the counter.
Oral contraceptives have a number of warnings, side effects and drug interactions. It's entirely reasonable and appropriate to require an annual check up. Women need a pap smear every 3 years, and if you're raw dogging your tinder hookups, you should probably get checked for STDs.
It's entirely reasonable and appropriate to require an annual check up
No it is not.
Pharmacists check those interactions.
So does Ibuprofen. So does Melatonin. So does Benedryl. So does Famotidine (Pepcid). These are all drugs I have on my shelf that I bought over the counter without even verifying my age.
What makes birth control so dangerous, relatively?
The pill's as dangerous as Aspirin.
And if you're worried about potential drug interactions then check out grapefruit. There's something that should be sold under-the-counter at your local grocery store.
Maybe for birth control pills, but several countries already sell Plan B over the counter with no apparent issues.
Simple then- nix employer provided healthcare plans. They should have fuck all to do with your health anyway.
Legislators legislating??
Alert the media!!!!!
And the delegated power of Congress will be relying upon is found where?
And if your answer is “the commerce clause,” does this mean that Congress can also declare a statutory right to purchase menthol cigarettes, “sugary drinks” tax free, etc.?
The bill cites the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, and the 14th Amendment.
They didn't know about today's military grade contraceptives. They only allowed sheep bladders and the pull out methods which is convenient because both of those are powerful fixations of me, though for different reasons.
You know? A lot of days I can't really recall whether or not I'm doing the whole "I'm a weird pervert" shtick anymore. That feels more like pre-hiatus BUCS.
But, Crusty isn't here either anymore, and I miss him, and I want the feeling he brought to remain.
It's cold in the Reason comments section. Damn cold.
STEVE SMITH HAS NO OBLIGATION TO WARM YOU. OR WARN YOU.
"This new learning amazes me!..." 🙂
Speaking of getting raw-dogged, why can't we comment on Steffie's article on the founder of Genetics Gregor Mendel? Has he been beat-down-ified as a Saint and thus immunized from comment?
How about a right to blow jobs then?
Public opinion about the Supreme Court has shifted dramatically since last year.
And another cherished institution goes down in flames.
Public opinion; AKA progs responding to polls.
It's almost like trashing one istitution compleatly on ever media outlet will have some edfect
She ought to check the Public's positions on the news business. Only 16% trust newspapers, 11% trust television.
California’s third-busiest port shut down some of its gates and marine terminals for a third day...
Do these things ever work out for the right?
...protesting a gig-work law that could take 70,000 drivers off the road blocked access to the operation.
If that claimed consequence is an actuality - and it being California I have no reason to believe otherwise - then top shelf work Golden State legislators. Fewer truck drivers are what we need right now.
Just wondering, how much more would it cost to ship stuff to a port that isn't run by leftist lunatics?
They own the entire coast.
Yeah, that's what I mean. How much more would it cost to get to, say, Houston or Mobile?
Galveston 1700, Houston 4300, Los Angeles $5600 for a Suzuki Jimney
Got to get it through the Panama canal or around south America - lots of added expense either way.
Maybe not more. Distance by water is cheap, and Florida and Texas are upgrading pretty facilities to be competitive with California's nonsense. I know the Panama canal is expensive, but may not be a deal breaker if the west coast continues to crazy.
We shoulda hung on to that canal.
We shoulda hung on to that canal.
Thanks BrandonThanks ObamaThanks Carter....had to get the right idiot democrat
BIggest problem is that the Panama Canal has limited capacity. A lot of the massive cargo ships that dock on the west coast wouldn't be able to fit through.
168 foot width is allowed.
Time to dig a new canal. Could be done relatively cheaply with nuclear excavation.
Just widen the Rio Grande
Seattle is clogged also, and it's really expensive to ship through the canal to Texas.
I've heard that Mexico has a Pacific coast. Longshoremen vs. Mexican cartels - who would win?
That would get great ratings on HBO.
Seattle is clogged
In more ways than one.
...long COVID more highly correlated with obesity...
How. DARE. You.
Healthy At Any Weight.
sore throats, headaches, and hair loss).
Is there anything the Covid can’t do?
Sore throat? When I had the 'Rona (THE HIGH TEST VERSION, NONE OF THIS SNIFFLES SHITE) back in 2020 I had very very painful long covid for days. And I almost died from not being able to taste Thanksgiving.
New commercials for vaccines suggest organ damage is also a possibility.
My cock still works just fine, if that's what you're insinuating.
I was just glad I have a piano, but I’m happy for you too.
And a nine inch pianist.
My father in law still cannot taste, a year and a half later.
That socks.
He shouldn't be tasting his socks anyway...unless that's a new test for the KungFlu that I haven't heard of before?
It’s one of those kinks Nick says everyone is always talking about these days.
That was by far the worst part. I'd had it happen to me before with an earlier sinus infection. I would not want to lose that sense for good.
Jeff hardest hit.
Hardly. I'll have you know that I have the physique of a Greek god.
Dyonisus? The fat version of course.
So is long covid just the latest excuse to why fat people get winded going up a flight of stairs?
...long COVID more highly correlated with obesity...
This Shapism cannot be tolerated.
Reason's Ron Bailey looks at President Joe Biden's Wednesday climate change speech.
A pen and a phone to save the planet?
The January 6 committee hearing will air in prime time again tonight...
Attempting to recapture the glory days of reporting on Trump to higher-than-warranted ratings.
Apparently it's a beach episode with Cassidy Hutchinson in a bikini and a romantic subplot between Cheney and Bennie Thompson.
The sub plot of Adam Schiff being the government's greatest spy is the best.
It will be interesting to see how badly the ratings are this time.
Does prime time even exist anymore?
I'll wait for the movie.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/66890686@N02/52230792947/in/dateposted-public/
...minute-by-minute account of what former President Donald Trump was doing during the Capitol riot.
Cue the Star Trek fight theme as Trump goes hand-to-hand against his Secret Service detail.
minute-by-minute account
We'll need to go down to frame-by-frame if we hope to catch Trump's jumping spinkick.
Trump's quite the athlete
https://youtu.be/SKG5F1VkZGY
While driving an SUV from the backseat.
Truly an omnipotent man.
Yes, why did the Secret Service prevent Trump from going to the capitol so he could calm his supporters and quell the riot? Who is in charge anyway??
What evidence have you that those were his intentions in going to the Capitol?
What evidence do people have that he was hoping to do the exact opposite and incite further violence?
What evidence do you have that those were not?
STFU Dee.
the correct response.
I think they are actually allowed to put their foot down if the president is going to put himself in actual danger.
Besides. It wouldn't have worked. Not even Dr King could stop an active riot. He and the rest of the civil rights leaders ended up fleeing when the I Am a Man protest got out of control.
BLM could sure give that "riot" a few pointers. All the other riots are laughing at them.
Never take a Star Trek role that requires you to wear a red shirt.
Funny how none of them look around and like, "Hey, would you mind changing shirts with me?"
Pretty sure Scotty wore a red shirt and yet somehow didn't die.
He had rank.
I hope they do it in a series of flashback and flash forwards, just to make it interesting.
Did they hire Quentin Tarantino for this episode?
A federal court says Georgia's six-week ban on abortion can take effect immediately.
I was hoping an immediate abortion ban would take place in six weeks.
Georgia's abortion ban may not be aborted.
Speaking of Georgia and Abortion, here's a reincarnated Jim Jones who needed to be subject to one long ago:
Infamous Cult Leader Gazi Kodzo Arrested After Dead Body Found In Home
https://www.thedailybeast.com/infamous-cult-leader-gazi-kodzo-arrested-after-dead-body-found-in-home
Australia charged a woman over $1,800 for mistakenly importing half of a Subway sandwich into the country.
Talk about your invasive species: Jared!
She loves her Subway even more than Jussie Smollett loved his.
There was no pedophilia in Australia until that sandwich.
Australia has borders?
Gotta keep the penals in. Or whatever the plural is.
Better than borders—it has sharks.
I remember when they were five dollar foot longs. This Bidenflation is killing us.
Most of the commenters at WaPo must be government employees. Almost none complain about the ridiculous fine or the stupid rule.
We really need federal legislation on respect for marriage? This is the burning issue for Americans? Really?
This just shows the utter disconnection between DC-based urbanites, and the rest of the country. Nobody really gives a shit about gay marriage in the face of 10% inflation. People at the median are struggling just to eat, and get fuel for their car.
Not surprised ENB ignores the elephant in the room (INFLATION) to focus on the cockroach in the corner.
They need the gay voting block to stay scared so they stay loyal. Democrats just going back to the Big Lie tactic that has worked so well for them to date, until it doesn't.
We really need federal legislation on respect for marriage?
Actually, yes. One of the reasons overturning RvW is such a big deal is that dems spent the last 50 years not codifying abortion.
Mostly because they liked having access to abortion at 40 weeks, but didn't want to put that in writing.
No, YOU FUCKHEADS apparently care. You're all obsessed about abortion and gay marriage and transvestites that you are passing laws left and right designed to hurt them or strip rights.
If you fascists weren't doing this shit there'd be no need to codify it.
You don’t have a right to rape children, creep.
Still don't think WHITE SUPREMACY and INSTITUTIONAL RACISM dominate the entire planet?
England's women’s soccer team has been successful in recent years. But the team doesn't look like the country it represents: Its players are almost all white, and it has a long way to go to improve diversity.
Totally unacceptable. I demand a comprehensive affirmative action program to guarantee racial diversity on every team in every sport, all the way down to Little League baseball.
#DiversityAboveAll
"England's women’s soccer team has been successful in recent years. But the team doesn't look like the country it represents: Its players are almost all white"
Outside of London and Birmingham the country it represents is almost all white natives. Most of England's browns are Muslim and they have a slightly different view on women's sports than the NYT.
England's women’s soccer team has been successful in recent years. But the team doesn't look like the country it represents: Its players are almost all white
The NBA's Golden State Warriors have been successful in recent years. But the team doesn't look like the state it represents. It's players are almost all black.
Yeah, that's confusing to me. England is an overwhelmingly white country. People who watch British television may be confused because dark skinned people are insanely over-represented in entertainment, but it's like 92% white.
I'm still not quite all-in on including the Welsh and Scots as "white" or "people".
Fighting words.
Wait....that is too late OBL = Little League baseball. No...You need to start with T-Ball, with the three year olds.
How did you miss that? 🙂
Mommy and Me ftw
They need more women with penises too.
Tesla is selling off 75 percent of its bitcoin holdings.
They see how the electricity that goes into crypto is bad for the environment.
I'm sure the "states won't have to perform gay marriages" will be just as true as the "businesses won't have to provide for gay marriages" lie you all were telling. Fact is the activists will sue until they get their way and you'll write approvingly all along the way. Sorry lady, but I have no faith in you progs being anything but malicious, dishonest cunts in every respect.
It's not about getting their way; they got their way a long time ago. It's about humiliating their opponents.
Abortion will be on the ballot in Kansas...
Make no mistake: THIS WILL BE A REFERENDUM ON TRUMP
Abortion will be on the ballot
Sounds messy.
"Projections show that Dilation and Evacuation will be the next governor of Kansas..."
The hangers are closing in.
Can't find anything about Congress's authority with respect to contraception in the Constitution, either....
Interstate commerce.
equal protection
privileges or immunities
This one is actually pretty easy. A right to privately contract for an elective medical product or procedure that does not harm a third party.
I don't think we need to write a bill specifically saying people have a right to obtain aspirin, flour, or thin mint cookies. It's an overreach of power because saying we have rights to obtain some thins implies that there are other items we are not allowed to have. Fuck off government.
Correction: we shouldn't need to write a bill specifically saying all that.
But when a state turns around and bans it? Then yes, we do have a need.
"that does not harm a third party"
They defined "contraception" so broadly as to encompass stuff that happens after conception, after which point there arguably *is* a third party involved.
Also, it overrides things like the RFRA, and could very well force certain employees to do things they'd rather not do.
Yeah, this bill is a ridiculous overreach. Might as well rule on our right to own cell phones or French windows or toe socks.
Public opinion about the Supreme Court has shifted dramatically since last year.
The media spends a full year shitting on something and public support for that thing goes down. How very odd.
Let's see...
SCOTUS issues a ruling that 2/3rds of Americans disagree with.
And the reason why fewer people trust SCOTUS is because...of the media.
Checks out.
Cite?
jeffy is fat and has no friends.
Checks out.
Hence the irrational fear of long covid.
He's also a shameless pedophile who should never be allowed near children
And again jeff cites a poll that was more proof positive of American ignorance than support.
60% wanted to keep roe while 72% wanted regulations past first trimester.
2/3rds of Amerians don't understand the constitution and the MSM either doesn't understand the law or more likely willfully reports it incorrectly for their own political reasons
"SCOTUS issues a ruling that 2/3rds of Americans disagree with"
You're always so full of shit. Not even you believe that.
You want to know a ruling that 2/3rds of Americans actually did disagree with at the time?
Obergefell v. Hodges.
Given the sheer number of people whom I spoke to that thought overturning RvW would ban even emergency triage, polling on the topic is not viable.
There have been blatant and outright lies told about this topic since day 1
Even more disagreed with Loving.
RvW was a terrible ruling that legislated from the bench and created the trimester system. It was a great example of judicial activism. One doesn't have to like or dislike the result to see this.
Thing is, most people only care about getting what they want. They don't care how. They liked RvW because of the result, and you can't convince them to care about the how. The result is all that matters.
sarc is correct here
Shhhh! You don't want to invite the wrath of the trolls.
Poor sarc.
Go back under the bridge.
Victim signal ignited.
No, that was me setting a fart on fire. Go join your buddy under the bridge.
Bringing the list back?
I’ve made a note on my calendar.
I think you nailed it, sarcasmic.
They like the bumper sticker title "Roe v Wade". They do not entirely like what Roe allowed. This is the sleight of hand of the pro-abortion side. The practical lack of restrictions Roe/Casey mandated are nowhere near as popular as "Roe" as an abstract concept. These types of poll questions are inherently silly in evaluating actual policy.
"hey liked RvW because of the result, and you can't convince them to care about the how."
That's just the thing. The majority of Americans actually want to restrict abortion more than RvW allowed. They just didn't realize it because the media has constantly preached that overturning RvW means banning abortion all together, as opposed to state compromises that will likely run the gamut between 0 and 36 weeks.
"And the reason why fewer people trust SCOTUS is because...of the media."
Its called gaslighting. The media is expert at it
So what is the court's job? TO deliver popular policy, or to interpret the law and constitution as it exists today?
It depends on what the social progressives want.
I think most people would say whatever it takes to get the result they want.
It's true that 2/3 disagree with overturning RvW.
It's also true that 95% of people don't understand that abortions were legal in the US until week 40.
It's also true that many people believe that overturning RvW means abortion is not only outlawed, but that women seeking abortions will be imprisoned. That falsehood is being fed by politicians.
It really is a demonstration of a combination of extreme media gaslighting layered on top of ignorance of the public.
A lot of lefties that were threatening to move to France, UK, wherever in the EU, seemed to have no clue that they have essentially 1st trimester restrictions there. So if they were moving from one of the many lenient states, this would actually give them LESS ability to get an abortion.
Its not hard to stir the mob up in a tizzy when they have no idea what's going on and you are excellent at lying to them
Don’t say gay.
but did find long COVID more highly correlated with obesity and with certain symptoms (sore throats, headaches, and hair loss).
People licensed to practice medicine have corelated hair loss as a symptom of 'long COVID'. Science!
Nobody lost hair before!
~~ seeks to retroactively blame long covid and receive benefits.
This can only mean that I got Covid about 5 years ago.
Tennessee is declaring war on the antidepressant tianeptine.
The last thing the state's economy needs is for blues music to go away.
Hah! Got a laugh.
House Democrats have a new court-packing scheme.
They're either shortsighted about how long they'll be in a position to stop the court from being repacked or they think a liberal SCOTUS means they'll never lose another election.
The most obvious counter is for Republicans to point out that they have a majority in the Senate, and take control. Re-chair all committees, and make Schumer go stand in the corner until mid-terms are over.
50 Republicans
48 Democrats
2 independents
that's not how the voting works
Nor how majorities work. At best that's a plurality.
Good morning Peanuts! This is your daily reminder the Biden Administration is going so well that any negative stories you read should be dismissed as wingnut.com lies. For example when NPR tells you President Biden's approval rating has hit a new low of just 36%, it cannot possibly be true. Not when we're currently in the best economy ever and Presidential approval is highly correlated with economic strength.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
31% now
"The Marquette poll, like others released since the decision came down, finds that a broad majority of Americans oppose the decision to overturn Roe, 64% vs. 36% who favor it, a divide that has not shifted much in the wake of the ruling," notes CNN.
So you would think that findings like this one would cause the erstwhile populists around here to be a little more circumspect about putting the mob in charge of public policy. If the popular will had been followed here, Roe would still be in force today.
That’s why we don’t do it that way.
Same for presidential elections.
The populist can still get their way at the state level moron.
The poll is the phony. The fact that there's no post-Dobbs bounce for the Democratic Party or hit on the Republicans indicates as much.
Roe was a bad ruling, regardless of the outcome. The court did the correct thing by sending it back to the states. Democrats had fifty years to put it into law. They didn't. That's where the blame should be directed.
This poll also goes against what I've seen from other polls, and even the Roe v. Wade stats change once your change the question from "Do you support Roe v. Wade" to "Do you support abortion throughout the full pregnancy." There's a lot of iffy things to lean on here, and goes to show you, once again, that issue polling is questionable at best.
I doubt people who support RvW know anything about it other than "Without it women will be forced to have babies at gunpoint!"
>If the popular will had been followed here, Roe would still be in force today.
If the popular will were followed, then abortions would be illegal after 20 weeks.
Bless your heart, still looking for a gotcha.
The popular will WAS enacted.
Jeff, just because you and your fellow leftists endlessly lie, to yourselves and others, does not make those lies reality.
And you all know that--even if just unconsciously.
If you really thought you had the 'popular will' then you wouldn't need the supreme courts to decree your will into law.
You and your fellow leftists would watch and gloat in rightwingers facesas state after state passed laws legalizing abortion on demand.
But you know that's not going to happen.
Because the people loathe you and all you stand for.
"a person has a statutory right…to obtain contraceptives"
How to square this with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
But more importantly: What about the right to obtain water, food, clothing, and shelter?
Read the real Romeo and Juliet...
Shakespeare, the OG!
(Original groomer.)
Rufo released more teaching material and classroom guidance for teachers to groom kids. Having kindergarteners playing with their pronouns. Encouraging them to be different by being trans. And so forth. Hide teachings from parents. More material for jeff to deny.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/lausd-imposes-radical-gender-teacher-training-curriculum-materials-instructs-teachers-on-not-disclosing-students-gender-identity
Forcing other people to use your preferred pronouns while keeping your gender identity a secret? This sounds like a job for The Blockchain!
Jeff's denying schedule has a heavy backlog.
Hide teachings from parents.
So, Jesse, can you point out, in that 140-page document that Rufo posted, where it tells teachers to hide the teaching materials from parents?
I looked through the whole thing and I couldn't find anything.
So you didn't read the document or his statements? Arguing from ignorance again?
https://mobile.twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1549856693017751552
Next up jeff denies school districts sending 50k bills for foia requests from parents over materials.
Do you even bother to pretend to educate yourself before countering a statement?
He didn't counter a statement. He asked you to provide details to back up your statement.
Do you have an answer for him?
Boring accusations and moving the goalposts don't count.
I provided details you fucking leftist defending idiot. Jeff even mentions it in his post.
No. You posted a link. He said he looked at it but didn't see what you were talking about, and politely requested that you point out what he missed.
Your response was, not surprisingly, to attack him personally.
Grow up, man.
“Grow up, man.”
By like, lighting farts on fire?
Ideas!
That document specifically calls out that as a policy at LAUSD, that the educational rights holder (i.e. the parent) is allowed to designate the gender and name of their children in LAUSD permanent records. However, their policy is to use the Child's preferred name and gender identity, without changing the permanent record or seeking the permission of the parents.
The entire purpose of this policy is to not inform parents if their kids' gender identity is being questioned and changed at school. This should not be allowed. If a kid wants to change their gender identity, their parents have a right to know that and weigh in.
Watch Jeff ignore this post and pretend it doesn't matter because Overt answered instead of Jesse.
Yep. Such a dishonest piece of shit.
The document is clear and Jeff even posted one of the pertinent passages pretending it didn't mean what it said.
You're shifting the goalposts.
You claimed:
"Hide teachings from parents."
Where in that 140-page document does it require or even encourage teachers to "hide teachings from parents"?
Otherwise just admit that you lied and made it up.
JesseAz should have been a cop.
He expects you to jump when he says jump, will attack you for any or no reason at all, lies about literally everything, makes shit up and honestly believes it to be fact, will never apologize or admit to being wrong, and will never change.
He's definitely police officer material.
You’re saying this to Lying Jeffy.
For fuck's sake sarcasmic. Overt answered Jeff's question and Jeff's pulling his old trick of redefining the issue to suit the argument he wants to make.
Quit falling for it.
Overt is reasonable and argues honestly. JesseAz is a teenage girl trapped in an adult male body.
Thank's, sarcasmic. You're my best friend.
I never commented on Overt's honesty, I commented on Jeff's. And even if every tenth word Jesse said was a lie, he'd still be a hundred times more honest than Jeff.
Except for im right in this case. This is just unprincipled sarc defending his team.
Number 4. You provided it below jeff.
My God do you even read your own posts.
The schools should not be uninfirming of any medical or psychological issues of a child. They do not have parental rights.
Telling teachers to consider the parents may not like something and don't inform them without student consent is hiding it.
Are you this dumb or just this much of a liar?
Remember when I argued that it was solely up to the parents whether or not a child could be castrated?
Well, now I'm saying that the parents aren't allowed to know their kids a tranny in case they disapprove.
And don't you dare call me a hypocrite, because double standards are okay when we do it.
That is not even what Item 4 says. You cannot even parody me correctly.
That's exactly what YOU said earlier, you slimey weasel.
So just to summarize, nowhere in the material presented are teachers required or encouraged to keep the teaching materials a secret from parents.
Just to summarize, chemtard begged the question and ignored this response from Overt because it made his lefty boos look bad:
That document specifically calls out that as a policy at LAUSD, that the educational rights holder (i.e. the parent) is allowed to designate the gender and name of their children in LAUSD permanent records. However, their policy is to use the Child's preferred name and gender identity, without changing the permanent record or seeking the permission of the parents.
The entire purpose of this policy is to not inform parents if their kids' gender identity is being questioned and changed at school. This should not be allowed. If a kid wants to change their gender identity, their parents have a right to know that and weigh in.
The materials are also being held behind FOIA laws. I even called out you would switch to this argument earlier. They are asking for extreme FOIA fees and claiming copyright infringements for parents asking for materials.
Materials aren't the only things being hidden dummy.
This is you trying to change the arguments because you know you're wrong on your initial assertion.
"So just to summarize"
As always Jeff rewords things to say what he wants to say and to put words in his opponents mouths.
ROFLMAO!
The omission of the possessive apostrophe in "educational rights holder*'*s authorization" combined with the "Otherwise, we'll do what we like, when we like."... *Jeffs kiss*
So, this is from the policy bulletin that Rufo posted. This is where Rufo claims that teachers are being told to hide students' gender identity from parents. However this is what the bulletin actually says.
It does not say "hide gender identity from parents". It DOES say that teachers should be mindful of the totality of the environment of a particular student.
If you don't agree with this statement, clearly explain why.
Oh. So no guidance on informing or telling parents.
4 literally tells the teacher to realize parents haven't been told.
Are you an idiot?
Item 4 acknowledges that sometimes the kid doesn't tell the parent about his/her sexual identity. That's correct.
What do you want teachers to do? "Out" their students to their parents?
“school
personnel should consult and work closely with the student to assess
the degree to which, if any, the parent is aware of the student’s gender
identity or expression”
Reading comprehension is hard.
It can't be more plainly stated but jeff is in complete denial.
Lying Jeffy lies.
He's so insanely dishonest. It's a pathology.
Yep. JesseAz sure it.
*is*
Just because ye mad that Jesse has made you look like an ass in the past, doesn't excuse you for running cover for a freakshow like Jeff.
So did what I just quoted support Jeffy’s claim or contradict it sarc?
He only makes me look like an ass to retards like yourself who think he's making a valid point when he calls me a liar for disagreeing with the voices in his head.
Couldn’t answer the question.
Yes. Of the school does not they are hiding it.
Schools are not parents.
Schools have a duty to inform parents. Just like when a kid get injured on school grounds, talks about suicide to a counselor, or many other interactions.
It is not the duty of the school to provide a solution, but to inform their parents.
You are ridiculous.
"What do you want teachers to do? "Out" their students to their parents?"
First, let's be very clear here: Chemjeff has moved from saying "They aren't telling teachers to keep information from parents" to, "Well maybe it is good to keep this information from parents."
But second, should teachers "out" their kids to their parents? Yes! Absolutely yes! These activists cannot have it both ways. They are insisting that gender identity is a MASSIVE public health crisis. They demand that young kids be allowed to do social and medical gender affirmation specifically BECAUSE failure to offer these treatments could lead to severe mental health issues including suicide.
If it is such a critical health issue for kids, then the teachers absolutely have an ethical duty to discuss with the parents, just as they would if the kid was contemplating suicide, or had an eating disorder, or involved in other activities that risked their health.
For crying out loud, how do people think this is defensible- that Teachers and other school officials are given the right to handle a serious health issue for a kid without the parent's knowledge or consent? And not just that, but actively conceal information from the parents?
Do you even understand liberty? Rights?
“Chemjeff has moved from saying "They aren't telling teachers to keep information from parents" to, "Well maybe it is good to keep this information from parents."
Without skipping a beat, and with sarc defending it.
And sarc has defended him a half dozen posts. Because he has no principles.
He’s not defending him, he’s just asking questions!
Note how he blatantly ignores the gaping holes you poked in his argument to simply declare, "see, I was right, no one even bothered to answer me!"
If it is such a critical health issue for kids, then the teachers absolutely have an ethical duty to discuss with the parents, just as they would if the kid was contemplating suicide, or had an eating disorder, or involved in other activities that risked their health.
Especially considering the massive suicide rates of transgenders to begin with, coupled with the fact that a lot of this is clearly being driven by mass media and peer pressure.
Imagine a teenager coming to a school counselor in the 80s saying, "I've been smoking weed and snorting cocaine," and the school responding with, "Well, that's all right, we'll make sure to keep this from your parents until you feel safe telling them." That's basically the same methodology that's being promoted with child transgenderism.
"...totality of the environment..."
Totality of circs, man. Good shoot.
“…. have not publicly disclosed their gender identity…. “
Jesus fucking Christ. There’s a policy for this. How did we get here?
Rufo released more teaching material and classroom guidance for teachers to groom kids. Having kindergarteners playing with their pronouns. Encouraging them to be different by being trans.
And BY THE WAY. I have been told over and over again that "grooming" does NOT refer to simply teaching concepts relating to LGBTQ issues, but instead refers to HIDING these activities from parents. But here, you are now claiming that "grooming" is not about hiding anything, but about "kindergarteners playing with their pronouns" even if there is no concealment or deception about the curriculum.
So which is it? Does "grooming" refer to hiding curriculum materials from parents? Or does "grooming" refer to teaching acceptance of LGBTQ concepts? Hmm?
Maybe you could admit what I've been saying all along - that the term "groomer" was chosen because of its close association with child sexual abuse, in order to deliberately conflate teaching acceptance of homosexuality with endorsement of pedophilia. That it is not really about hiding teaching materials from parents, it is about the teaching materials ITSELF.
Maybe you can answer this: When is it ever acceptable for a teacher to withhold that kind of information (i.e. hiding from parents that their child is experiencing psychological issues relative to their gender identity)?
What if a kid risks bodily harm from their parents if they came out of the closet to them, but has confided with their teacher?
Do you think the teacher has a responsibility to tell the parents, or to respect the kid's privacy?
Is your argument that schools have a right to determine the safety and morality of kids over parents?
If a school believes abuse is happening they have reporting requirements. They do not have the power to determine the best interests of the child.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
If a kid confides in a teacher by saying "I think I might be gay but don't tell my dad because I fear he will beat me if he finds out", then at a minimum, the teacher should take that statement seriously. Don't you think?
What would your response be? "Sorry kid, I'm gonna tell your dad, good luck with the beating"?
You kidding? JesseAz would call up dad because he knew the kid would get a beating.
It is amazing watching you two push broadband indoctrination over a "what about" occurrence where schools already have a reporting duty.
Talk about principles.
Says the guy who has to make shit up in order to have something to argue against.
Thanks sarcasmic. You're a real tiger.
How can I say this more clearly...
THE SCHOOLS ARE NOT PARENTS.
It is not up to them to determine how a child should be raised.
Youre replacing the family with school.
This is another example of why you are called a statist.
Right. So if dad wants to beat junior for being gay, that's his prerogative!
So dishonest.
Right. So if dad wants to beat junior for being gay, that's his prerogative!
If the teacher has seen signs of abuse tat indicate that this might be true the teacher should have reported it already.
If there are no signs of abuse it is not the teacher's prerogative to infer them so as to hide the child's possible severe medical/psychological status from the parents.
There is no way around this.
Are you capable of reading jeff?
They have abuse reporting requirements.
If there are no signs of abuse it is not the teacher's prerogative to infer them
No inferring necessary. The kid explicitly says so: "I fear I'll be beaten".
So, should I put you down in the pro-beating camp then?
They have abuse reporting requirements.
So: Kid has no physical signs of abuse, but yet says "don't tell dad because I fear I'll be beaten".
Send him home to be beaten, or not?
I would say a teacher shouldn't get involved. Public schools are already way too involved in kids' lives. They should stick to the limited mission of education of children. Even before these issues came to the fore, the mission creep was already too much.
I wouldn't say that a teacher should be obliged to inform parents in the specific scenario you describe. Nor should they get involved absent evidence of actual abuse. But if the school is keeping separate records on the kid that parents are not informed of, that seems like a big problem.
And again, since you and sarc seem to be completely retarded.
Schools have a duty to report abuse they are told about. They do not have a duty to solve the issue. That is not their domain.
But you two statists want to replace child rearing with the state.
Jeff because you're an incel.
Sarc because he is a terrible parent.
One again you are refuting arguments that no one made.
That isn't true. He was specifically refuting your argument. You asked what would happen if the teacher felt that sharing a kid's gender dysphoria with the parents would result in the kid being abused by the parents.
Jesse answered that. The solution is not to withhold the information. If the teacher has reason to believe the kid is being physically abused, their recourse is to report the abuse- not pick and choose which information they will share with the parent.
Just replace this with ANY other potential medical issue and the possibility of abuse. If you teach a kid and they are having thoughts of killing themselves what do you do? You do NOT hide this information from their permanent record (as this policy recommends). You do not try to treat the kid yourself (which is what "affirming their gender identity" is doing). Instead you get the kid help by talking with the parents. And if you think the parents are going to physically harm the kid based on this information, your ethical duty is to report the parents to CPS, not ignore the potential abusers.
I didn't make an argument. You have no idea of what I think about the issue because I didn't say.
So Jesse is making shit up and arguing against it. It's his typical strawman routine.
Now you're doing it too.
So much for thinking you're one of the reasonable ones.
And at this point if I said what I think about the issue the troll brigade would jump up and call me a liar for disagreeing with the voices in JesseAz's head.
You're doing it too. You just lost a lot of respect, bro.
Poor sarc.
"I didn't make an argument. You have no idea of what I think about the issue because I didn't say."
Oh, you were just asking questions? Fine. Then Jesse didn't "address your argument", he "answered your question".
Are you really going to play the offended victim because someone saw you "asking questions" and assumed that it was an argument you were making?
"So Jesse is making shit up and arguing against it."
What is he making up? You raised the question. At worst, he is guilty of mistaking (or misattributing) a point YOU raised as being a genuine belief of yours, instead of just a random musing on your part.
"So much for thinking you're one of the reasonable ones."
That is absurd and unfair. You specifically said this:
"What if a kid risks bodily harm from their parents if they came out of the closet to them, but has confided with their teacher?
Do you think the teacher has a responsibility to tell the parents, or to respect the kid's privacy?"
Forgive me if I thought that was an argument you were making. As for being reasonable, can you reasonably see why maybe I thought it was an argument you were advancing?
This is one of their tricks Overt. They ask repeated questions that clearly indicate what side of an argument they’re on, but intentionally refrain from making declarative statements so they can play the victim when people call them out.
They get to be dishonest AND be the victim. My best guess is a personality disorder (many of sarc’s statements about his personal life support this assertion).
""I think I might be gay but don't tell my dad because I fear he will beat me if he finds out""
This is irrelevant to the subject at hand. We aren't talking about being gay, we are talking about treating a medical condition- gender dysphoria. If a person believes that they are not a boy, despite having all the plumbing and parts, then they have a medical condition. Even these teachers agree that it is a condition that needs to be dealt with, otherwise they would not claiming that it is healthy and necessary for such kids to change their gender identity.
So this isn't about being gay. It is fundamentally the same as a teacher catching a kid popping Adderal and the kid saying, "Hey don't tell my dad that I self diagnosed myself as having ADHD". In those cases the teacher has an ethical duty to report.
It is relevant for ALL LGBTQ issues, not just transgenderism.
But fine, why would anything change if the kid said he was transgender instead of gay? The point here is that some kids face the threat of real abuse *from their own family* for expressing their true identity.
If the teacher thinks that there is a real chance for abuse, the teacher has an ethical obligation not to knowingly subject that kid to abuse. I *do* think that the parents ought to be told, eventually. I think it ought to be done in a way that minimizes the chance for abuse from anyone.
Round and round Lying Jeffy goes!
“…. for expressing their true identity.”
Ummmmm, yeah.
"But fine, why would anything change if the kid said he was transgender instead of gay? The point here is that some kids face the threat of real abuse *from their own family* for expressing their true identity."
What you are saying here is that a teacher 1) believes that the child has a mental condition, 2) believes that the parents not only won't treat that condition, but will abuse them for expressing it.
And this all assumes that a) the teacher is qualified in diagnosing a confused child from one with a true gender dysphoria, and b) the correct treatment for this problem is always changing one's gender identity. Teachers are not doctors, or psychologists. They are not qualified to do this. Period. Nor are they qualified to recommend any treatment, let alone one that is extremely controversial in the scientific community.
But even if we did assume a and b, then the proper response is for the teacher to get the children remanded into state custody. Teachers and schools do not have the right to treat children for a mental disorder. The only people with that right are their legal guardians. And if the Teacher believes the guardians are misusing their rights through withholding treatment or abuse, then the Teacher's responsibility is to REPORT THAT to the state, not treat the children themselves.
"If the teacher thinks that there is a real chance for abuse, the teacher has an ethical obligation not to knowingly subject that kid to abuse."
No they don't. They have an ethical obligation to remove the child from the abusive situation. If that teacher believes this child will be harmed if that information gets out, then they MUST assume the real possibility the parents will find out some other way. If they have reason to believe this, then they are ethically required to report an abusive situation. It is also the law.
Teachers are not doctors and they are not psychologists. They are not licensed to make these recommendations to kids, and they do not have the RIGHT to make the decisions on which treatments will be performed for someone else's kids.
Thanks overt. Not sure why jeff and sarc are confused on these points.
What you are saying here is that a teacher 1) believes that the child has a mental condition, 2) believes that the parents not only won't treat that condition, but will abuse them for expressing it.
And this all assumes that a) the teacher is qualified in diagnosing a confused child from one with a true gender dysphoria, and b) the correct treatment for this problem is always changing one's gender identity.
No. I am not making either assumption. I am simply stating that in this particular situation, it may be unwise for the teacher to immediately go running to the parents and say "HEY GUESS WHAT YOUR KID IS TRANS". But if the teacher didn't do that, you would accuse the teacher of "keeping secrets from the parents".
But even if we did assume a and b, then the proper response is for the teacher to get the children remanded into state custody.
Sure, that could be one option (a very drastic one for sure). But there are also a range of possible options between "send the kid home to get beaten" and "send the cops to arrest the parents". It might mean, for example, arranging for a family discussion in the presence of a counselor. Would that be okay? It would mean "keeping secrets from the parents" at least until this meeting could be arranged. Are you going to freak out and accuse the teacher of "grooming" if he/she does that?
"send the cops to arrest the parents"
He really can’t help himself from being dishonest. He even used quotes.
It is relevant for ALL LGBTQ issues, not just transgenderism.
LOL! jeffy just argued that being gay is the same as having a maladaptive psychological health condition. Get ready for your cancelation jeffy, you homophobe.
I always knew you would get yourself loaded on the train. You just don't know when to shut the fuck up.
"I am simply stating that in this particular situation, it may be unwise for the teacher to immediately go running to the parents and say "HEY GUESS WHAT YOUR KID IS TRANS"."
And you are wrong to say so. Look man, either changing one's gender identity is a lifestyle choice, or it is a psychological condition. In either case, the child's choices here are subject to the approval of their legal guardian. Full stop. Just as dietary choices like keeping Halall, Kosher, or vegan is a lifestyle choice or treating them for ADHD is treating them for a medical condition. Teachers do not have the right to keep that information from the parents.
"Sure, that could be one option (a very drastic one for sure). But there are also a range of possible options between "send the kid home to get beaten" and "send the cops to arrest the parents"."
No there aren't and this "oh it depends on the totality of circumstances" is a giant dodge. No teacher is qualified to make a judgement as to whether holding "Secret A" is going to get a kid beaten or not. Because it is utterly absurd for a teacher to jump to the conclusion that "Secret A" will result in abuse, unless they ALREADY have evidence of abuse.
If a teacher has legitimate concerns that a child will be abused for being Trans, then that concern is based on evidence. Either the child has said "I will be beaten" or they have observed evidence of abuse. In any of these cases, the teacher is required BY LAW to report the parent. They are not instructed to treat the situation delicately. They are mandated by law to report the child. And- since they are not empowered or trained to evaluate and deal with these issues- it is ethically wrong for them to do something else.
But you know this, Chemjeff. We all know this. You are trying to artificially inflate these grey areas because what is actually happening has nothing to do with abuse. In reality, "Gender Fluidity" is an extremely controversial subject, and activists are pushing on children in schools and mass media. They are using smokescreens like "mental health" and your "abuse" canard to justify pushing this dogma on kids without their parents knowing consent. In reality you don't mind "Gender Fluid" teachings, and in fact would prefer (as you note below) a world where all kids are comfortable with gender fluidity. So you serve up a situation where your preferred result (all kids taught gender fluidity as fact, role-playing in kindergarten, and transitioning without parents' knowledge) occurs under the guise that it is protecting against an unlikely and uncommon corner case. It is utterly transparent.
Parents and only parents have the right to raise their children. That's a point you have argued when we talk about schools that are "inclusive" of gender-fluid lifestyles. But now you get coy when maybe the parents don't want their kids raised that way. Whether it is the dress-code they decide for their kids, their diet, their medical treatment, or their view of gender roles, the parents- as rights holders- demand and deserve to have full knowledge of what is happening to their child.
I didn't make an argument. I asked a couple questions. One of these days you'll make an argument without personal attacks.
Ha ha ha ha. Who am I kidding.
You spoke from ignorance to defend your leftist team mate.
Literally are defending grooming and parental non notification over a whatabout when the reporting mechanism for abuse already exists.
You have no principles. You just rushed to defend your teams awful arguments by justifying it through extreme cases.
Youre as dumb as the pro aborts screaming ectopic pregnancies.
And unprincipled.
Where did you get all of that?
Was it when I asked a couple questions to start a discussion, or when I pointed out that you responded to jeff's polite and reasonable request with a personal attack?
"jeff's polite and reasonable request"
You know damn well Jeff's sealioning.
It's okay for you to agree with Jeff that it should be hidden from parents, but let's not pretend for a second that Jeff is acting in good faith.
I didn't agree with anything. I posed a question for debate. How retarded are you?
Defend me harder, sarcasmic.
Young kids do not have any right to privacy from their parents. Their parents have the right and the need to know everything about them.
^This
But but but, what if I make up some really scary hypothetical? Haha, checkmate bitch.
You still don't understand what grooming is for you retard? It isn't just hiding you fucking moron. It is slowly making someone comfortable with more and more controversial actions.
A pedophile may start with gentle hugs to gain acceptance of contact. Then start games to expand contact.
You truly are an idiot jeff.
The inviting ti social clubs. The encouragement for behaviors. These are all part of the grooming process you fucking idiot. Telling a 5 year old to pretend he is the opposite gender and encouraging it is in fact a process of grooming.
I really am starting to think you're a pedophile at this point.
The inviting ti social clubs.
You mean inviting to LGBTQ-themed social clubs, right? Surely you don't mean that a teacher inviting a kid to join, say, the chess club or a sports team, is a type of "grooming"?
What precisely is wrong with inviting any student to join any club, whether it's a Rainbow Club or not? Why would you regard this as "controversial"? Unless... unless you think that homosexuality itself is "controversial". Is that what you think?
Because, as has been shown on multiple documents shared in the past, these clubs are introduced as "Show support for LGBTQ people" but we have witness testimony, teachers admitting on video, and captured materials, showing that these clubs are actually targeted at getting kids to question their gender identity.
These teachers do not believe that Gender is a thing. They are trying to not just introduce kids to this theory (which should STILL be at the parents' discretion) but they are ALSO to indoctrinate them in it.
Die, pedo.
What? So creating castrati and catamites is pedo now?
"And BY THE WAY. I have been told over and over again that "grooming" does NOT refer to simply teaching concepts relating to LGBTQ issues, but instead refers to HIDING these activities from parents. But here, you are now claiming that "grooming" is not about hiding anything, but about "kindergarteners playing with their pronouns" even if there is no concealment or deception about the curriculum."
Everything you have said there is grooming. Many, many, many parents do not agree that biological boys can be girls. Many many many scientists also disagree. Full stop.
Having kids play around with pronouns is not just introducing them to LGBTQ concepts. It is asking them to role-play a specific gender-queer lifestyle that parents don't agree with. And the fact that they are setting up policy allowing teachers to avoid informing parents what this is happening is absolutely wrong.
And by the way, Chemjeff, so what? Let's say we stop using the term Grooming.
Are you going to defend these policies of having kids roleplay a gender-queer lifecycle? Are you going to defend the policies of hiding a serious mental condition- gender dysphoria- from parents?
I get the sense you don't like people criticizing your side, but because these are such indefensible policies, you are objecting to the process.
Fighting back on the language and terminology used is a constant tactic. Like saying that it's not actually Critical Race Theory being taught in schools, even thought we're seeing CRT being APPLIED to the education of children.
Can we just look at this thing, whatever term we have for it, and agree that we disapprove of it? We disapprove of teachers pushing their gender politics on six year olds. We disagree with anti-racist tactic of telling white kids they're racist by virtue of their skin color, and telling black kids they're victims for the same reason. Let's just condemn what is happening without picking fights over what term we use for it.
Right, that's what I mean. Taking umbrage at the term "Groomer" is merely a tactic to try and keep people from objecting, when it is more difficult to defend what they are objecting.
Except that JesseAz is a dishonest piece of shit. So his use of the word is intended to elicit an emotional reaction that gives him an excuse to attack jeff for saying the word is being misused, and then it's a conversation about jeff instead of whatever the topic may have been. That's JesseAz's shtick. I used to think you were above that shit.
No, taking umbrage at the term "groomer" is to express complete disgust for many on Team Red trying to resurrect the vile trope of "gays = pedophiles". It is disgusting and wrong. I know that you believe that it is not, but there are many, like Jesse and Nardz and Briggs, who do.
Kindergarteners, Jeff.
Fuck you, groomer.
ULYSSES!
The only ones lumping all guys with groomers is your team jeff. In order to ignore the issues being raised.
It's your team that is declaring the TEACHERS, not the gays, but the TEACHERS, to be "groomers" if they teach tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality. Just ask Nardz, that is his position after all. Is Nardz on your team or not?
I am in favor of teachers telling kids that they don't have to be bound by rigid gender roles that society might want to place upon them. I am in favor of teachers fostering an environment of self-acceptance. That it is okay to be who you are and that there isn't anything wrong with you if you don't have the physique of a pro athlete or a supermodel, or if you don't have the same interests or desires as your peers. That is what I am in favor of.
“I am in favor of teachers telling kids that they don't have to be bound by rigid gender roles that society might want to place upon them.”
That’s not their fucking job, groomer.
Notice how he says "gender roles" rather than actual physical biology. As if not wanting to live like a normal nuclear family is the same as wanting to radically alter your body to something it will never actually be.
That it is okay to be who you are and that there isn't anything wrong with you if you don't have the physique of a pro athlete or a supermodel, or if you don't have the same interests or desires as your peers.
LOL, and here chemtard conflates feeling bad about not looking like super-fit hot people, to encouraging children that yes, they actually are the opposite gender that biology gave them, and that mutilating their bodies to look like that desired gender is a perfectly reasonable and emotionally healthy action to want to take.
Well. He is fat. He has felt this way his whole life and wants acceptance for his own actions even if they result in obesity.
"I am in favor of teachers telling kids that they don't have to be bound by rigid gender roles that society might want to place upon them. "
This is a moral value statement, and the idea that you or a teacher should get to teach this to kids without a parent's consent is wrong. Note also that you have finally moved from saying "Why can't teachers expose kids to these theories" to actually standing behind the notion that children should be taught a certain moral value system about gender and sexuality, even against the consent of the parents.
"That it is okay to be who you are and that there isn't anything wrong with you if you don't have the physique of a pro athlete or a supermodel, or if you don't have the same interests or desires as your peers."
And I will note that isn't what is going on here. These people are insisting that if you have preferences outside of normal gender norms, YOU MUST BE A DIFFERENT GENDER. Read the book about the boy who decided he was a girl because he liked Pink and Unicorns- not because he felt he was a girl, but because he liked doing things that girls typically do. The trans clothing line for girls to wrap their breasts is called "Tomboy". See, being interested in doing sports and boyish things used to be breaking gender norms, but now it means you are actually a boy.
As you can see, this is terribly controversial now, and teachers should not be hiding the discussion from parents and pushing their own worldview.
But I am glad that you have finally dropped the mask and are willing to actually defend what these people are teaching. You are wrong in the teaching AND in the teacher's rights to teach it, but at least we can argue that, rather than silly things like semantics.
This is a moral value statement, and the idea that you or a teacher should get to teach this to kids without a parent's consent is wrong.
There are certain moral propositions that the school ought to teach even if the parents think it is wrong. There is no such thing as a completely amoral education. If parents object that much, they can teach their own ideas at home, or homeschool.
How far do you want to take this 'parents decide' position? If the parents are a bunch of bigots, do you want the school to reinforce this bigotry just because the parents demand it?
But I am glad that you have finally dropped the mask and are willing to actually defend what these people are teaching.
No, I told you what I am in favor of. It may or may not correspond to what "these people are teaching".
"There are certain moral propositions that the school ought to teach even if the parents think it is wrong."
Such a devout postmodern nazi
"There are certain moral propositions that the school ought to teach even if the parents think it is wrong. "
YES! Let the totalitarian flow through it. Give in to your collectivism. But understand this makes you NOT a libertarian.
" If parents object that much, they can teach their own ideas at home, or homeschool."
Or they can bring light to these controversial teachings, and get them changed at the local level. Right Chemjeff? Or is that wrong when it is teachings that you don't like?
"How far do you want to take this 'parents decide' position?"
I'm not going to be playing this reductio ad absurdum argument. You continue to do this- argue that teachers be allowed broad authority to hide facts from parents under the extremely small chance of abuse; arguing that because some small number of parents might teach intolerance, schools ought to be given the right to override parents' teachings.
But see, we know what you are doing here. It isn't that schools are teaching "Don't hate other races". The schools are teaching "10,000 years of gender was a lie of the capitalist patriarchy". You are trying to use things like racism and bigotry to justify what is actually happening.
But to be clear, yes. If a parent wants to raise their kids as bigots, that is their right. Just as it is their right to raise kids as gender-fluid snowflakes. And both sets of parents are absolutely within their rights to demand that their schools teach consistent to this moral framework. In our current school systems, dominated by the leftists that you never seem to have time to criticize, that means calling attention to current policies, and working with other parents to change the teaching.
That process is incompatible with schools that HIDE shit from parents. Hiding what is happening to their kids is unethical, and prevents parents from exercising their rights.
We know, Jeff. That's why you get called 'groomer'.
Because you're a groomer.
I am in favor of teachers teaching kids how to read, write, do arithmetic, learn about the scientific method and be taught the factual particulars of what happened in history. I am in favor of teachers fostering an environment of learning. That if they learn HOW to think they need never be afraid that they'll be forced to learn WHAT to think. That is what I am in favor of.
It is not the teachers job, in any way shape or form, to assume the prerogatives of a parent.
It is not the teacher's job in any way shape or form, to assume the prerogatives of a friend.
Teachers are not there to tell children WHAT to think. That is reserved to parents. Teachers are there to teach them HOW to think. HOW to use the wonderful tool that is their brain. Not WHAT to use it for.
It is not the teachers job, in any way shape or form, to assume the prerogatives of a parent.
It is not the teacher's job in any way shape or form, to assume the prerogatives of a friend.
You can't control this. Teachers DO have certain legal and ethical responsibilities associated with taking care of the kids under their supervision. In addition teachers are mentors and authority figures and kids naturally look up to them. Look at coaches for heaven's sake. There is no such thing as an actual teacher who is nothing but a robot repeating a script.
I am in favor of teachers fostering an environment of learning.
How? By not exploring any issue that is remotely controversial?
"You can't control this"
I see we've gotten to the "yes its happening, it's good, and it's too late to do anything about it now" stage
All in one day.
Jeff wants teachers to be the parents.
Jeff wants teachers to be good role models and to act ethically and professionally towards the students who are under their care. Jeff wants teachers to reinforce generally accepted moral standards about acceptable behavior. Jeff also recognizes that if parents really object to this, they can always teach kids whatever they like at home without objection, and/or homeschool their kids.
"I am in favor of teachers telling kids that they don't have to be bound by rigid gender roles that society might want to place upon them. "
Here collectivistjeff comes out EXPLICITLY in favor of grooming young children
“…..having kindergarteners playing with their pronouns.”
Kindergarteners. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
did find long COVID more highly correlated with obesity and with certain symptoms (sore throats, headaches, and hair loss).
What's the correlation with fibromyalgia?
What's the correlation with hypochondria, hysteria or victim complex.
hypochondria
You just made that pseudo-scientific term up to slander people who are only concerned about their health, like all the homophobes concerned about "groomers".
I lived with a hypochondriac for years. Always self-diagnosing some debilitating condition. Lupus and Lyme Disease come to mind immediately. But it was always something. Some excuse to extract pity and get out of doing things.
People like that are as much fun as dead puppies.
Tarantulism, witchcraft, demonic possession, hysteria, neurasthenia, "nerves", Morgellon's Disease, chemical sensitivity, fibromyalgia—for thousands of years, there has been a debilitating imaginary disease that affects almost entirely women. New fashionable names for it are always being introduced.
Liked how sarc chimed in with his obvious victim complex. Lol.
You mean when I lit the troll signal and you came running like a horny bitch?
Excellent news!
Our progressive allies succeeded in getting a Dave Chappelle standup show canceled. Or at least moved to a different venue? Either way, the more difficult we make it for people to hear his vile material, the better off this country is. 🙂
Dave Chappelle Show Canceled by Minneapolis Venue After Social Media Backlash
I have never been prouder to be a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, which I joined at age 19 when I switched to they / them pronouns.
#LibertariansForCancelCulture
Their statement included the words freedom of artistic expression. It was beautiful.
"“When I heard those talking points coming out of these children’s faces, that really, sincerely, hurt me. Because I know those kids didn’t come up with those words. I’ve heard those words before. The more you say I can’t say something, the more urgent it is for me to say it,” Chappelle said."
Good quote, but it's sort of ruined at the end when he called stand up comedy a "noble, noble profession." It's many things, but noble sounds like a bit much.
Dave is very and unapologetically self-important.
I would disagree. Comedy is one of our greatest assets as humans.
Good quote, but it's sort of ruined at the end when he called stand up comedy a "noble, noble profession." It's many things, but noble sounds like a bit much.
"So brave! So brave. You're like a firefighter that ran into a burning building, hoisted a little old lady over his shoulder, and tucked a newborn under his other arm and ran out. Like that fat chick who took her shirt off to be on the cover of a magazine that was promoting her movie." - paraphrased from Bill Burr
In Dave's defense, someone did try to kill him during a set
"The First Avenue team and you have worked hard to make our venues the safest spaces in the country, and we will continue with that mission. "
So very brave.
“People will die!” - tony.
Haha.
a minute-by-minute account of what former President Donald Trump was doing during the Capitol riot.
He is a 76 year-old man (74 on 1/6/21). You know at some point he left the room to take a piss. Congress finally has the opportunity to inform America how often the POTUS takes a piss. I I can't imagine a more significant fact this committee could reveal.
One thing you can be sure they will not reveal is what thousands of FBI agents and supervisors were doing while the alleged insurrectionists marched past their HQ or during the subsequent riot. The J Edgar Hoover Building is located halfway between the White House and the Capitol on Pennsylvania Ave and the entirety of the protesters who listened to Trump walked right in front of it.
The FBI needs to be a destroyed and never replaced. It's one of the biggest threats to democracy and freedom out there right now.
Or what was in the flurry of communications going on among the FBI that morning, before Trump's speech
"a person has a statutory right…to obtain contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and a health care provider has a corresponding right to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception."
Alright! My right to suppress my sperm count using exogenous androgens is right around the corner! This right to contraception wouldn't be just yet another run-of-the-mill "Don't say Men's" reproductive rights bill, right?
Every piece of legislation should reference the specific Constitutional power that Congress is seeking to invoke. Other than FYTW, what Constitutional power is Congress invoking here?
They do that, actually. It might be total bullshit, but Congress generally does lay out explicit authority in their bills. Now, you and I might think that authority located within 'necessary and proper' is just nonsense and a version of FYTW, but they do cite it.
Doesn't "necessary and proper" refer to carrying out the enumerated powers and not to "anything that we want to do that we think necessary and proper?"
Free castration on demand!
You’re getting Jeffy excited.
You rang?
""any limitation or requirement that…expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented singles out . . . "
If only the founders had said that about arms, instead of "shall not be infringed".
*sigh*
They were brilliant men who could not have anticipated contemporary stupidity.
Democrat mayors are beginning to realize illegal immigration is a strain on their budgets as just thousands of illegal immigrants are moved to their cities. Don't they know only border states should bare the brunt of the costs?
Face The Nation
@FaceTheNation
·
Follow
Homeless shelters in Washington D.C. are filling up with asylum seekers from Texas and Arizona. Mayor Bowser says “I fear that they're being tricked into nationwide bus trips when their final destinations are places all over the United States of America.”
Tom Winter
@Tom_Winter
·
Follow
NBC News: NYC's social safety nets are being strained by an influx of asylum seekers from Latin America and being bussed in by Arizona, Texas, and the feds, according to Mayor Adams.
Tom Winter
@Tom_Winter
·
Follow
Replying to @Tom_Winter and @MelissaRusso4NY
Mayor Adams' office says, "New York has experienced a sharp increase in asylum seekers from Latin America and other regions, with more than 2,800 individuals entering New York City’s shelter system."
"NBC News: NYC's social safety nets are being strained by an influx of asylum seekers from Latin America and being bussed in by Arizona, Texas, and the feds, according to Mayor Adams."
Oh my god, the feds are KIDNAPPING immigrants?!
Caging them up in the Greyhounds until they can be let loose in the urban paradises that want them.
There are CHILDREN in DOG BUSES!
this is excellent
The only proper response is for TX and every other state to ship double the number of illegal aliens to DC. Drop them off in front of the Capitol building, and tell them to ask for Nancy P for help.
this.
We had to hear how racist and intolerant border states were because they wouldn't let the poor benevolent Guatemalan, Venezuelans, Mexicans etc into the country. This made them racist and evil because they claimed these people came illegally and would be using services that we pay for (aside from not allowing us to have a sovereign nation).
Now NYC is doing what standard progs do. When they have to be the ones who provide the services, have their taxes go up, have their safety nets stretched, its all of a sudden a problem. They are happy to cry at the kids in cages when thats happening in a border state, but when its in their back yard, they go from white saviors to "uhhhh not with MY tax money, not in MY state"
I know of a certain politician who espouses socialist policies.
He also has multiple houses, and does not use all of the rooms in the house he uses most. Why, oh why, has he not offered the excess space to the "immigrants"? His personal wealth, far in excess of his salary, is sufficient to feed, clothe, and provide health care for all of them.
This doesn't square with the fact that immigrants literally use no public services. In fact, less than zero, I'm told.
Correct. Their payroll taxes alone will erase the debt in less than 6 months.
If we double the intake, the national debt will be wiped by Christmas.
Plus: Foodtrucks!
They don’t even drive on the roads, they float over them in cars with planet saving emissions.
Democrat mayors are beginning to realize illegal immigration is a strain on their budgets as just thousands of illegal immigrants are moved to their cities. Don't they know only border states should bare the brunt of the costs?
This was the main reason the Obama administration tried to settle a bunch of them in outlying rural areas. The problem is that these areas don't have the resources or social environment to handle large influxes of immigrants without causing upheaval, and so they naturally end up migrating to urban areas that have generous socio-economic policies and where they can blend in easier.
"I wanted health care for everyone until I realized I'd have to pay for it..."
Public opinion about the Supreme Court has shifted dramatically since last year. In a new poll from Marquette Law School, just 38 percent of respondents say they approve of the current Court—down from 60 percent last year. This year's poll was taken between July 5–12 and involved 1,003 adults. "The Marquette poll, like others released since the decision came down, finds that a broad majority of Americans oppose the decision to overturn Roe, 64% vs. 36% who favor it, a divide that has not shifted much in the wake of the ruling," notes CNN.
Wait, so despite the shifting sands of gay marriage support and the series of toppling dominoes bringing American States' abortion law into line with Europes, the support for SCOTUS is dropping and Roe v. Wade remains remarkably stable? That fact must be absolutely critical to... something.
I dont believe any polls but I especially dont believe polls that seem to support the lefty narrative.
This year's poll was taken between July 5–12 and involved 1,003 adults. "
100% of the poll participants are seen here in a June 25 file photo speaking at an abortion rally.
"Democrats push for 1st semi-automatic gun ban in 20 years"
[...]
"WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats pushed ahead Wednesday with legislation that would ban certain semi-automatic weapons as they considered their most far-reaching response yet to this summer’s series of mass shootings.
Democrats hope that the 100-page bill moving through the Judiciary Committee will pass the House before the August break. But that is far from assured because some moderates in the party, especially those from swing districts, are wary of a vote on broad gun controls before the November elections — especially when the bill has little chance of becoming law due to opposition in the Senate..."
https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-push-1st-semi-automatic-172301252.html
What was that about donkeys needing a whack on the head with a 2X4 to get their attention?
Cody Wilson may have something to say about that lol
What was that about donkeys needing a whack on the head with a 2X4 to get their attention?
Imagine pro-life conservatives trying to pass a bill that banned *any* pregnancy that could've ended in an abortion since Roe v. Wade. Imagine all the obvious questions about convicting mothers who wanted to and legally did carry their babies to full term and who's kids are now almost 50 yrs. old. All the questions about mothers who lost babies in tragic boating accid... I mean to pre-eclampsia before pre-eclampsia was widely understood. All the thalidomide babies who are now dead who's mothers we'd be convicting. All the questions, even if those crazy conservatives were willing to "be pragmatic" and grand
fatherperson in all the 50-yr.-old unregistered fetuses and only implement a common-sense registration and database scheme going forward. A no-shit, real life Handmaid's Tale.Then imagine, without pro-life conservatives being even remotely crazy enough to even whisper to each other about such an idea without getting smacked by their own peers, saying "both sides".
Biden on July 21st, 2021 - "But again, one last thing. I — we don’t talk enough to you about this, I don’t think. One last thing that’s really important is: We’re not in a position where we think that any virus — including the Delta virus, which is much more transmissible and more deadly in terms of non — unvaccinated people — the vi- — the various shots that people are getting now cover that. They’re — you’re okay. You’re not going to — you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations. "
Biden tested positive for Covid exactly one year after the quote above - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/21/president-biden-tests-positive-for-covid-19.html
100% safe and effective with no downsides.
Fauci didn't die and now Biden isn't dying. I am still unvaccinated and coming up on a year since my own infection and my natural immunity hasn't waned despite multiple exposures to subsequent strains. I am beginning to wonder if maybe some of the COVID panic is exaggerated.
FTFY
At this point it definitely is.
There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that vaccination makes it easier to be infected repeatedly. I really hope it doesn't turn out to be the case. But I'm pretty happy I declined to take any of the vaccines.
Mass rollout of vaccines that don't prevent infection during a pandemic is a really bad idea.
If you stand to make hundreds of billions from coerced buyers, it can look like a great idea.
The good news is he is taking plaxovid. So there will be a second chance for him to die.
Another example of mask theater failure.
And it was a complete lie at the time. Even the vaccine makers never made such a claim.
Yep. Biden saying it was months after Walenski saying it, and SHE was lying at the time!
The January 6 committee hearing will air in prime time again tonight (starting at 8 p.m. Eastern time) and provide a minute-by-minute account of what former President Donald Trump was doing during the Capitol riot.
Sounds riveting.
I hope we get to see some crappy CGI reenactments like they have on some foreign news channels.
But no charges will be filed.
If we took the January 6 committee completely at their word, what is the committee's purpose again? I'm curious how being hyperfocused on Trump (they already had one full day of speaking specifically on everything Trump said) is serving that purpose.
All the suspense of a Washington Generals vs. Globetrotters game.
And about as much comedy.
strolls away whistling Sweet Georgia Brown - - - - - -
Once again, if .fed can't make rights via law for items and services, as the majority opinion says, that's consistent across the board.
Here's Soave running cover for Hunter Biden...
https://twitter.com/HillTVLive/status/1550134641516023808?t=YAMKEHHRgkQQUnL91W4tag&s=19
. @kthalps and @robbysoave discuss the latest from the federal investigation into the Hunter Biden scandal.
[Video]
All I can say, Sevo, is that if it were Donald Trump Jr or Eric Trump or Ivanka Trump or Barron Trump....They would have already been frog-marched in front of the cameras with the MSM breathlessly telling everyone how the death penalty should apply.
The double-standard here is appalling. This dickhead is on fucking video weighing out coke with some hookers. AYFKM?!
the double standard is the point.
They are trying to beat the opposition into submission by showing us what happens when you are on their side vs. not.
Robby is also taking the position that since media/justice isn't talking about (obvious) corruption, it must not exist.
Not an ounce of integrity.
I disagree with literally nothing in that video.
The idea that we're used to scandals involving President's kids thanks to Donald Trump is between non-sequitur, counterfactual, and defamatory. If she'd said "Thanks to Malia Obama, Barbara and Jenna Bush, or even W himself.", I would've absolutely agreed. Considering the way the Trump family's lives have been raked through with a fine tooth comb, without even an inkling of addiction or drug abuse, I have trouble thinking of any other family in America that I'd feel as confident saying they're 100% drug free.
I think we're used to salacious details of Presidents and their family members going at least back to JFK. This doesn't bother me. Clinton had tons of salacious stories around him, Reagan had some family embarrassments, as did Jimmy Carter.
Trump had plenty of salacious details involved in his presidency as well-jokes about his daughter making a sex tape, the fact he got sued by an actual porn star, accusations of nepotism involving Ivanka and Kushner, etc. It's not like Trump's family lacked any controversies during his tenure.
accusations/i>
See, when you call yourself "A Thinking Mind", agree with rhetorical sleight of hand, and then equate accusations and evidence in defense of the sleight of hand, it tends to say less about the evidence and more about you.
The point is that just because Trump was often gross in his personal life, doesn't mean that his kids had anything untoward going on. Hell, the fact that the worst we ever got out of them was Twitter bantz and questionable policy influencing from Ivanka's husband, I'd say they came off as being pretty stable.
I didn't watch the video, but this seems to be changing the subject. Yeah, lots of presidents' kids are live wires. But that isn't what the Hunter thing is about. This is about a live wire getting rich because he is trading on his father's name. Possibly with the knowledge and assistance from his father. That's a big deal.
He was talking specifically about the latest bits people are talking about, though. It's a short video-he says, "What we're really interested in is the corruption and the connection with Joe Biden, not whether he obtained a firearm illegally or has multiple drug convictions."
Robby was saying basically what I've said: I don't care about the salacious, spicy shit, I want to hear about the substantive issues.
The main problem is that the salacious, spicy shit is being done by a guy who's directly connected to the President and has been shown to essentially be Biden's bag-man with shady overseas dealings. The crack and hookers are an issue because of how it opens up the White House to foreign leveraging if Hunter gets caught in a honeytrap.
I'm interested in the shady dealings and tracking it back, and I find the stuff like, "He paid $45,000 to three Russian hookers!" to be a massive distraction. I don't care if he bought a Hummer or a trackball mouse either, but people won't pretend those things are somehow relevant.
Focus on the details of the corruption, of him taking money in exchange for connecting people with Biden. Show him using money from his business to fund Joe, and Joe trading favors to Hunter's business partners. I really don't care if Hunter was on crack while he was committing treason, I'm more interested in the treason.
The Crack and hooked are circumstantial evidence of untrustworthy behavior that indicate he's the kind of gut who would take large sums of money to launder for his father's influence, as well as having no other qualifications for the jobs that pay him large sums of money.
These things are not irrelevant, and most definitely not the whole story.
Robby is trying to deflect attention from extreme corruption.
The Crack and hooked are circumstantial evidence of untrustworthy behavior
Bullshit. You like those things because it's salacious and embarrassing, and you're desperate for anything that's embarrassing to Biden. And you shouldn't be, the man embarrasses himself on a daily basis.
I don't care about politicians being embarrassed. I apply the same standards to both sides. I don't think it's a national security threat that Trump hired a bunch of hookers, or had an affair or with Stormy Daniels, and I apply the exact same standard to Hunter Biden. I care about what's substantive, not what's embarrassing or salacious.
"if Hunter gets caught in a honeytrap."
How exactly would he get "caught" at this point? Everyone knows what he is now. If he got "caught" he could just say "yeah, I fucked her" and nothing would happen.
Plus, Billy Carter was also trading on his brother's name. Definitely a scumbag. Not really the reason people are talking about Jimmy Carter these days, though.
Was Billy Carter involved in possibly getting nuclear war started (not to mention tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money)?
Robbie says if it only about guns and drugs it isnt an issue.
The fact is the same leak mentioned money laundering, tax evasion, foreign work not reported. Etc.
And he ignores the shared bank accounts, flying hunter on AF2 to meet clients, meeting with Joe right after foreign business meetings, etc.
Also, let's be honest. The drugs are also an issue. Not because I care if some guy is doing crack but his father is literally the sponsor of the 1994 crime bill that resulted in thousands and thousands of people serving DECADES of time for doing the same thing.
That is completely fucked up.
I dont want Hunter Biden to go to jail for crack.
I want anyone currently behind bars for crack today to have their sentence immediately commuted.
If Brandon had an ounce of integrity he would do that, sheepishly, and contritely. But it wont happen.
I want Hunter and Joe and WJC and W to go to jail for using drugs and abuse of power and anyone currently behind bars who didn't similarly use drugs and abuse their power to have their sentence immediately commuted.
If you're going to shit in the other hand either way, might as well make the wish in the one hand as fantastic as possible. - The Art Of The Deal
It's a blatant display of the two-tier justice system.
Also, since we're being honest, let's not pretend that the drugs (and hookers) don't have anything to do with the bank accounts, nepotistic job appointments, and other violations of the law.
It's not like Hunter is some high-functioning alcoholic who just happened to get in the way of a lamppost or weekend pot smoker who got stopped with an unloaded gun in the trunk. His drug use got him bounced out of the Naval *Reserve*, he impregnated a stripper that he tried to dodge by living under his dead brother's name, his typed records contain details of statutory rapes. I'd like to think that lots of libertarians are pretty pro-drug and wouldn't be opposed to investigating whether an adult gave drugs to a minor or had sex with a minor who was high on drugs. Especially if they were the son of the sponsor of the 1994 Crime Bill *and* the Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 1991.
"I think we're pretty used to scandals involving President's kids... thanks to Donald Trump."
I was gonna go on a rant about Amy Carter, Patti Davis, Barbara and Jenna Bush, and Malia Obama but suffice to say... broken, just abjectly broken.
TDS is terminal. Brain functionality never returns.
"Teachers Union Poll Finds Swing-State Americans Trust Republicans More Than Dems On Education"
[...]
"A survey conducted in seven battleground states found that more voters trust Republicans than Democrats on issues related to education, according to poll results obtained exclusively by NBC News.
The American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s second-largest teachers union, solicited polling from Hart Research in seven battleground states — Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Pollsters found that 39% of respondents trust Republicans more on education than Democrats..."
https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/14/teachers-union-poll-americans-trust-republicans-education/
'Hey! That's NOT what we paid for!'
this is what happens when you stop teaching kids science and literature and instead spend all your time on indoctrinating them into woke socialism.
Parents dont like that. And everyone knows the public school domain is entirely Democrat. The shift has begun.
Now, we can just eliminate public school entirely...
Schools aren’t indoctrinating children! Arrggg!!!
-Lefty Jeffy
Parents *and kids* dont like that.
FIFY
Better get to fortifyin'
Truckers with an American flag is almost as bad as truckers with a Canadian flag.
And while I appreciate the truckers' protest, that picture suggests that all 15 of them will have their grievances heard at the earliest convenience of California lawmakers.
From what I read in National Review, the contraceptive rights bill apparently has a provision removing RFRA protections from contraceptive issues. Given that the Democrats consistently say that one does not have "access" if their is no positive right to contraception, I do not believe that there will be no attempt to coerce health care providers to give out "contraceptives" including abortificients if this passes. Especially once it becomes a regulatory matter under a Democrat administration.
I should see if the bill clearly defines contraceptives and abortifacients. And I'm of the opinion that Plan B should be considered contraceptive, but there's plenty of abortifacients that I can imagine people disingenuously calling contraceptives.
It was the central point of contention in the Hobby Lobby case.
The bill does include this:
(24) States have attempted to define abortion expansively so as to include contraceptives in State bans on abortion and have also restricted access to emergency contraception.
But it very poorly defines lines between abortifacients and contraceptives. Here's the definition the bill uses for contraceptives (it has no definition of abortifacient):
(2) CONTRACEPTIVE.—The term ‘‘contraceptive’’ means any drug, device, or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy, whether specifically intended to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs, that is legally marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, such as oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, internal and external condoms, injectables, vaginal barrier methods, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings, or other contraceptives.
It looks like it ultimately comes down to what the FDA calls a contraceptive, and digging through that mess is beyond my capacity to quickly parse.
To its credit, the bill doesn't seem to be trying to sneakily make abortifacients legal by broad definitions of contraceptives, I just still find the bill an overreach of government authority by implication. Implying that the government has the power to recognize this one group of items as something we have a delegated right to possess implies Congress can restrict our ability to own many other things, which Congress cannot. People have a right to obtain things they want that do not impugn the rights of others in common usage.
Somewhat regardless of The Hobby Lobby case, The Catholic Church (for which I have no love) and many protestant denominations still relegate *any* birth control to the realm of 'spilling seeds on barren soil'.
In a
completely self-servingmore equally protective note about a point I raise elsewhere, male birth control actually, to a large degree, obviates a/the literal interpretation of that text. Carving and eating the flesh off an apple is not spilling a seed on barren soil if the seed remains on the tree.Tesla is selling off 75 percent of its bitcoin holdings. (See also: Can bitcoin become untraceable?)
We know this because Bitcoin is traceable.
>>Congress moves to establish a right to birth control.
rights requiring establishment seem oxymoronic.
To be fair, if it requires the enslavement of others to provide that right to you, then you gotta make an establishment.
lolword.
A singular carveout from the regulatory authority vested in the entrenched bureaucracies of the FDA and DEA is not a right in any meaningful sense of the word. It is an allowance made for prols who adhere to the party platform. They are introducing another corrupted definition of 'rights' similar to how they have presented government transfers of wealth to provide healthcare and housing as 'rights'.
How can anyone announce that you have a federal right to self-medicate for contraception while maintaining that you have no right to self-medicate for pain with a straight face?
Because they don't believe in rights at all in the sense that we do.
How about the right to purchase any product you want if you have the money and someone is willing to sell it to you?
I think that's innate. does trade require more than agreement?
am I a fool to hope *this time* going after Capone's accountant won't be enough?
"After parents demand action, Uvalde CISD announces recommendation to fire Pete Arredondo"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG0_y-0eW74
Guessing it was the pitchforks that got the school board members' attention. Or perhaps the nooses.
I mean, you'd think being a blatant liar engaging in a horrific cover-up would be sufficient cause for firing this asshole. But apparently it required the public actually complaining about him being a mendacious fuckwit for them to take action.
He's collected 8 weeks of salary paid by the parents who lost kids as a direct result of his incompetence or stupidity.
When he does get fired, I'd want a full refund.
So the President announced he had cancer... and I haven't seen any coverage of that here. So I guess I have to wonder... is our president so addled, so dementia-riddled that we just shrug when an announcement like that is made and assume it's another misspeak despite its gargantuan proportions?
Or if it is true, do we just not care?
I think he was referring to having previously been treated for skin cancer sometime before his presidency. But it's both a misspeak and a lie because his cancer wasn't a result of the oil industry, and he said, "have" instead of "had," when referring to past treatment.
Ok, so it's a gaffe that we ignore. So the next time the President is on the podium and he says, "Gentlemen, the missiles are flying!" we can just shrug and go back to watching TikTok.
Yeah, it's surreal.
From around 2015 to... whenever it was Trump was banned from Twitter we were not only told but shown, in no uncertain terms that every utterance from the President was of such paramount importance, that each 140 character blip on the radar required hours, if not days and even sometimes months of journalistic scrutiny. In addition, the courts declared a 1' x 1' square of Twitter-- that being Trump's personal twitter account-- a public concern, something that even Reason said was "reasonable" given the national importance of such a space of communication to the very fabric of our democracy.
Now the President says "I have cancer" and we just say, "huh" and move on to the next crazy thing Ron DeSantis did.
Ron DeSantis
Heh. Ignore what Biden said, pay attention to what DeSantis' bill explicitly don't say.
I used to think we needed to bring back dueling as a means to voluntarily normalize what people say with what they mean and what they do. It's getting to the point that I think people should be able to just toss a loaded gun at someone, shout "Defend yourself!", and then shoot them.
I like this idea
Ok, so it's a gaffe that we ignore.
To be fair, regardless of who is president, I ignore the vast majority of everything they have to say. The last time I even paid attention to a State of the Union address was probably 2003.
Let it be known that July 19th, 2022 was the day that the Media collectively decided that what the president says can be simply ignored.
So the next time the President is on the podium and he says, "Gentlemen, the missiles are flying!" we can just shrug and go back to watching TikTok.
OK, now I'm completely confused. If he Tweets "I'm meeting with the Joint Chiefs" do we assume WWIII is about to break out, continue watching TikTok, or both?
Wait for the Chiefs to confirm that.
The fake libertarians of the right - like Rand Paul - are generally libertarian only wrt the Federal gubmint. When it comes to the state gubmints or the police, they seem quite happy to bleat states' rights, "comply", etc.
But this legislation is an example of the Federal gubmint passing legislation protecting citizens' rights or at any rate, liberty. Even if there are more urgent matters, such legislation should nonetheless be approved of.
Rand Paul is pretty libertarian about federal government because he's in the federal government. If he was in the state government, he'd probably try to repeal bad state laws, but he's not in favor of massively expanding federal power to fix bad state laws. Because who's to say what makes a bad state law?
I would be happy to do that.
I'd like to meet real libertarians. The assholes here are simply Republicans/fascists who'd rather not say it out loud.
Unmask your email and I can make that happen, bubbe.
The one thing that ties all libertarians together is the assertion that no one else is a real libertarian. So, in that way the libertarians were around you all along.
Big surprise the authoritarian fucks here are arguing against this. So many "freedom loving" "libertarians" here that are against a law simply ensuring you have freedom. A law designed to protect you from the worst excesses of government but no, of course you lot would argue against.
>>against a law
operative term, Holmes.
If you support it, it definitely doesn't ensure that we have freedom or protect us from the excesses of government.
Oh lookie... The GOP and it's Supreme Court nominee's pulled a B.S. RINO move and now its costing them big time....
So much for the GOP saving the USA (U.S. Constitution) -- Seems every-time they get popular trying to they pull some B.S. MORE Gov-Guns move...
Pro-Lifers have RUINED the Republican Party more than they'll ever admit.