Alabama Says Helping With Out-of-State Abortions Is 'Criminal Conspiracy'

Alabamans have no right "to conspire with others in Alabama to try to have abortions performed out of state," argues Attorney General Steve Marshall.

Alabama's attorney general is insisting that he has the right to prosecute people who help pregnant women obtain out-of-state abortions. In a court filing earlier this week, Steve Marshall said such actions amount to criminal conspiracy.

Marshall's filing comes as part of a case involving the Yellowhammer Fund, a nonprofit that bills itself as an "abortion advocacy and reproductive justice organization." The group and two women's health centers—the West Alabama Women's Center and the
Alabama Women's Center—sued Marshall in July over the attorney general's suggestion he could go after groups that help pregnant Alabamans get out-of-state abortions.

Marshall first made this suggestion last summer on a local talk radio program, The Jeff Poor Show. "If someone was promoting themselves out as a funder of abortion out of state, then that is potentially criminally actionable for us," Marshall said, according to the Yellowhammer Fund's complaint. "And so, one thing we will do in working with local law enforcement and prosecutors is making sure that we fully implement this law."

"There is nothing about that law that restricts any individual from driving across state lines" and seeking an abortion, Marshall continued. But an "entity or a group that is using funds…to facilitate" out-of-state abortion travel "is something we are going to look at closely."

Marshall "specifically referenced the accessory liability and conspiracy provisions of Alabama law as the basis for prosecuting abortion funds," according to the Yellowhammer Fund complaint. And Marshall reportedly made similar comments at a Federalist Society meeting last summer. He stated "that Alabama law has a criminal conspiracy statute that could apply to attempts to procure an abortion out of state," according to Matt Clark, former president of the Alabama Center for Law and Liberty.

"By invoking these provisions to punish lawful activities, [Marshall] seeks to forbid the act of helping pregnant people obtain safe and lawful abortion care and chill constitutionally protected activities," the Yellowhammer Fund argued.

"The consequences of the threatened prosecutions are significant, even if a threatened prosecution would ultimately be unsuccessful," it added, noting that it is "not operating an abortion fund today because it fears Alabama's anti-abortion attorney general will target the organization."

This week, Marshall asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. The Yellowhammer Fund is "mistaken" in arguing that they "have a right to conspire with others in Alabama to try to have abortions performed out of state," Marshall's complaint asserted. "An elective abortion performed in Alabama would be a criminal offense; thus, a conspiracy formed in the State to have that same act performed outside the State is illegal."

"The conspiracy is what is being punished, even if the final conduct never occurs," stated Marshall. "That conduct is Alabama-based and is within Alabama's power to prohibit."

Marshall's motion makes clear that it's an array of activity that he considers criminal conspiracy, not just providing funds for someone in Alabama to obtain an out-of-state abortion. He mentions speech related to procuring out-of-state abortions, saying it "receives no constitutional protection," and argues that "the right to travel…does not
grant Plaintiffs the right to carry out a criminal conspiracy simply because they
propose to do so by purchasing bus passes or driving cars."

Marshall has asked the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama to dismiss the Yellowhammer Fund's complaint.

A federal court recently rebuffed Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador for asserting that the state's abortion law gave him the power to prosecute doctors who referred women out of state to terminate their pregnancies. In early August, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho granted a preliminary injunction against Labrador enforcing the state's abortion law in that manner.

It seems unlikely that Marshall will fare any better by arguing that state conspiracy law gives him the right to do so.

Many legal scholars—and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, among others—are fairly certain that states can't constitutionally ban people from traveling out of state for abortions themselves. Among other issues, it runs up against right-to-travel precedents set by the Supreme Court, and against the Dormant Commerce Clause.

"Abortion would count as an economic activity for Dormant Commerce Clause purposes," noted Damon Root last year. "This means that a state barrier which interferes with the ability of a state resident to take advantage of another state's economic activity (abortion) via interstate travel would be constitutionally deficient under the Dormant Commerce Clause."

This could also be relevant when it comes to helping others travel out of state.

And prosecuting people for referring others out of state for abortions or counseling them on how to get them definitely runs into First Amendment issues.

Can states prohibit paying for out-of-state abortions? A February decision in Fund Texas Choice v. Paxton may be instructive. "Charitable fundraising to support illegal conduct is likely to be constitutionally unprotected," lawyer Eugene Volokh wrote about the decision. "But here the court concluded that the fundraising was aimed at supporting legal conduct (since out-of-state abortions aren't legally forbidden by Texas law), and the Court has indeed treated fundraising for legal causes as constitutionally protected."

Comments

[mad.casual]

Alabama Says Helping With Out-of-State Abortions Is ‘Criminal Conspiracy’

Lemme guess, the dishonest cunt that believes in an ‘individual right to free reproductive medicine’ is being disingenuous about one or more words in the title.

[windycityattorney]

Pro tip: You could just read the article to see if she is being disingenuous. There is no need to speculate.

She does quote the Attorney General of Alabama who claims he has a right to pursue criminal conspiracy charges against people who help Alabama residents procure out of state abortions. In fact, that is the whole point of the fucking article.

[Olivahunter]

I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com

[Rob Misek]

Viability is a term that applies to all living things. It means the ability to continue living.

It doesn’t include being ripped from the environment that your body biologically requires for survival.

That we have changed and assigned that meaning to only unborn children is how we try to justify our genocide against them.

How do we call an egg viable until it becomes a person?

Abortion is responsible for the murder of over 60 million helpless innocent unborn human beings in the US alone. It is the greatest genocide in earths history.

Any place or person that allows it does not value the inalienable right to life.

There is no constitutional right to abortion.

[Nelson]

"Viability ... means the ability to continue living."

Not surprisingly, you leave out the most important part: independent of the womb.

If you take an organism and place it on the ground, does it continue living? If so, it's viable. If not, it isn't.

So no, a fertilized egg isn't viable. There's almost a 30% chance that it will eventually become viable, but that has never happened before 21 weeks. Never. In the entire history of the human race.

"Abortion is responsible for the murder of ..."

Only if the legal definition of murder is completely changed. Abortion, legally, is not murder. And a fetus, legally, is not a person. No matter how much you and your fellow travelers proclaim it to be so.

[Rob Misek]

Fertility clinics which discuss human viability regularly define viability as

“Viable vs. Nonviable Pregnancies While the concept of a viable and nonviable pregnancy is relatively easy to grasp, it is governed by strict definitions. From a clinical perspective, a viable pregnancy is one in which the baby can be born and have a reasonable chance of survival. By contrast, a nonviable pregnancy is one in which the fetus or baby has no chance of being born alive.”

Clearly to the experts, viability doesn’t include being ripped from the environment that your body biologically requires for survival prematurely aka the womb.

Are you viable? What if I took you from the air you require and placed you underwater? By your genocidal definition you aren’t viable now.

A person is defined as a human individual. DNA science proves that from conception, a baby is both, aka a person.

[Nelson]

"Viable vs. Nonviable Pregnancies"

Yea, that is the language used by fertility doctors to describe the pregnancy, not the fetus. As in "did the procedure (fertility meds, surgery, IUI, IVF, ICSI, GIFT, or ZIFT) result in a pregnancy or not".

If it meant, as you ignorantly claim it does, that the fetus was viable, there wouldn't be any such thing as a "nonviable pregnancy", would there?

The word "viable" is an adjective. It modifies a noun. Which is why viable species, viable arguments, viable business ventures, vuable pregnancies, and viable fetuses are all different things. Fetal viability refers to the fetus' ability to survive outside the womb. Any word other than "fetus" after the word "viable" is discussing a different subject altogether.

If you need a refresher course, Schoolhouse Rock! has an excellent segment on adjectives.

"viability doesn’t include being ripped from the environment that your body biologically requires for survival prematurely aka the womb."

That isn't what viability is, either. If a fetus is a viable human being, it can survive in the same environment as every other human being. If it can't, it isn't a viable human being.

"Are you viable?"

Yes. Unlike a pre-viable fetus, I am a self-sustaining organism.

"What if I took you from the air you require and placed you underwater?"

No humans can survive underwater. Not drowning when placed underwater isn't a characteristic of a viable human. A viable fish, yes.

"By your genocidal definition you aren’t viable now."

No, by my definition I'm still a viable human being. Until I'm a dead human being because you drowned me.

"A person is defined as a human individual."

Legally, that is completely wrong. Logically it is also wrong, since being a human individual requires you to be an individual. As in an independant (meaning separate, not the pedantic "having a job and living on their own" nonsense) organism.

"DNA science proves that from conception, a baby is both, aka a person."

It absolutely does no such thing.

[Rob Misek]

The baby is the pregnancy. Logically, the pregnancy can only be viable if the baby is.

A non viable pregnancy is simply one where a medical disorder prevents the baby from being born alive.

Adjective’s are used to improve our understanding of words. They wouldn’t do that if their meaning changed for every word they described. Viability means the ability to continue WHEN UNDISTURBED. To continue living in the case of a baby and a pregnancy.

If a pregnancy is viable before the baby can live outside the mother, logically the baby is also viable at the same time. No young baby can live outside the mother.

A young baby is viable in the mother until it is old enough to leave.

Are you not a person because you can’t survive outside your parents basement?

That is exactly what DNA science proves.

[Nelson]

"The baby is the pregnancy."

Those are literally two different things. Fortunately, you aren't anyone's doctor. Or a scientist.

"A non viable pregnancy is simply one where a medical disorder prevents the baby from being born alive."

You mean like 73% of all natural pregnancies? A fertilized egg has a 27% chance of being born alive.

According to you, a fertilized egg is a person, right? And according to you (and other anti-abortionists), if an abortion isn't performed, a fetus will inevitably become a baby one day so we all have to pretend that a fertilized egg is a baby, right?

So what do you call a nonviable pregnancy (a fertilized egg that is never born)? A baby that committed suicide?

"Adjective’s are used to improve our understanding of words."

That's not what an adjective is at all. An adjective modifies a noun. That's all it is.

"They wouldn’t do that if their meaning changed for every word they described."

It doesn't. It has a meaning, but not without a noun saying what is viable. Species, pregnancy, fetus, argument, organ, pathway, all of those and more can be modified by "viable". And whatever noun is after "viable" is the topic under discussion. That's how adjectives work. It's how language works. It shouldn't be that hard for you to understand.

"Viability means the ability to continue WHEN UNDISTURBED."

Not in the English language, as used by people without a political agenda. The words in caps are only used by anti-abortionists because that's not what it means at all. Fetal viability is the ability of a fetus to survive AT THAT MOMENT outside of the womb. It only refers to the present, not future possibilities.

"If a pregnancy is viable before the baby can live outside the mother"

That literally contradicts the meaning of viable. If a fetus cannot live outside the womb, it is by definition not viable. Saying "if this word didn't mean what it actually means ..." is a flawed and false argument.

"A young baby is viable in the mother until it is old enough to leave."

Again, that's literally the opposite of what viable means.

"Are you not a person because you can’t survive outside your parents basement?"

And you used the semantic and dishonest argument that most zealots use (and that I predicted you'd use).

Independent means separate from in this context. Claiming otherwise is semantic bullshit.

"That is exactly what DNA science proves."

You seem to love using this as a slam-dunk, winning argument, but it isn't relevant at all, nor does it prove whatever you think it proves.

Your arguments lack logic, but that's a description of most anti-abortion arguments. The rest are just totalitarian statism.

[Rob Misek]

There is no living unborn baby without a pregnancy and there is no viable pregnancy without a living unborn baby.

The two exist in the same place at the same time and necessarily together. They are the same thing.

A woman is pregnant whenever there is a viable fertilized egg implanted in her womb. You do have to recognize logic and science if you want to be rational.

A dead baby?

Well if you don’t use adjectives to improve understanding, you’re using them wrong.

The adjective viable improves the understanding of things that are undisturbed. Only when we’re trying to justify the genocide of the unborn do we insist that to be viable they must remain so when removed prematurely from their mothers, aka disturbed.

That is a biased and improper use of language to achieve a corrupt outcome.

Fertility clinics call every pregnancy at every stage after implantation viable if the baby stands a chance of living through birth, the natural end of a viable pregnancy.

I use correctly applied logic and science that you can’t refute to refute your ridiculous claims.

Are Siamese twins persons?

Since 1989 with the invention of DNA fingerprinting science individual persons are reliably identified by their DNA alone. From conception a baby can be identified from its unique DNA.

Slam and dunk.

[Nelson]

"There is no living unborn baby without a pregnancy"

By your definition (inaccurate though it may be), a fertilized egg/zygote is a "living unborn baby". In IVF, ZIFT, and ICSI there are fertilized eggs or zygote that have not been (and in some cases will never be) implanted. So using your beliefs, there are a LOT of "unborn babies" without a pregnancy.

"The two exist in the same place at the same time and necessarily together. They are the same thing."

Not even a little bit. The definitions of fertilized egg and pregnancy are completely different. Probably because they are completely different things. Saying two things are the same because you want them to be treated the same is vocalizing your ignorance for all to see.

"A woman is pregnant whenever there is a viable fertilized egg implanted in her womb."

Agreed. That doesn't make it a baby. In 9 months there is a possibility that it will become a baby, but it's a long, long way from a sure thing.

At that moment it is a zygote. Nothing more, nothing less. It certainly isn't a baby by any scientific definition.

"You do have to recognize logic and science if you want to be rational."

I do. Which is why I find your beliefs so bizarre. They aren't even a little bit scientific or logical, which is why they're irrational.

You are free to hold to your irrational beliefs for yourself, but if you want to force them on anyone else you have to have some sort of rationality and "there's almost a 1 in 3 chance that roughly nine months from now this zygote will be a living, breathing baby so it counts as a baby now" isn't rational.

"Well if you don’t use adjectives to improve understanding, you’re using them wrong."

What are you babbling about? An adjective has a specific use in the English language. And it isn't "to improve understanding". If you're confused, you can look it up on any grammar site.

"Only when we’re trying to justify the genocide of the unborn do we insist that to be viable they must remain so when removed prematurely from their mothers, aka disturbed."

Again, what are you talking about? Viable refers to a present state, not a future state. A viable thing means it's viable right now.

There certainly aren't any modifiers in the definition that say "unless A, B, or C happens" or "unless D, E, or F don't happen".

If you want it to apply to a future state, be honest and say "may become viable" or "has a chance to become viable".

Viable means "Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn." Not potentially capable one day.

"That is a biased and improper use of language to achieve a corrupt outcome."

Yes, the way you try to use viable is exactly that.

"Fertility clinics call every pregnancy at every stage after implantation viable"

You still don't understand how adjectives work? In your sentence, "viable" modifies "pregnancy". Which is a different word than "fetus". Different words have different definitions for a reason.

"I use correctly applied logic and science that you can’t refute"

You use neither logic nor science. You start with your preferred outcome and work backwards. If that requires you to redefine words (like "pregnancy" and "fetus") or make viability refer to the future, why not? Your cause is righteous and simple things like definitions and grammar must bow before your beliefs.

You not only aren't using logic or science, you're barely using the English language. Refuting you on abortion is as easy as refuting you on Holocaust denial. There isn't a rational element to either of those beliefs.

"individual persons are reliably identified by their DNA alone"

That doesn't mean it proves personhood (a legal concept) or life. A person's DNA is exactly the same when they're dead as when they were alive. It proves nothing.

"Slam and dunk."

Apparently that's another part of the English language you fail to grasp.

[Rob Misek]

Maybe someone as obsessed as you with mincing words should read a dictionary.

Baby: b. An unborn child; a fetus.

That refutes the first half of your irrational babble.

On to viability.

What can’t you understand about the current state of a living baby being viable within the mother? It is an individual similar to Siamese twins - two individuals living necessarily together until they can be separated. In pregnancy birth naturally separates the two when the baby is ready.

I have demonstrated that your genocidal definition only defines a stage in the baby’s development and contradicts not only logic, but the fertility experts and every other use of the term viable.

Nothing else is expected to be viable when attacked and destroyed which is exactly the only way a baby leaves the mother before it’s ready. How viable are you with a gun to your head?

Only murder advocates like you use viable in that way.

You haven’t refuted anything that I’ve said. Your baseless denial of correctly applied logic an science demonstrates that you have no interest in recognizing reality.

I’m pleased with the optics of this discussion.

[Bruce D]

Rob wrote:

Baby: b. An unborn child; a fetus

A fertilized egg is a zygote not a fetus or baby. A fertilized egg attached to the uterine wall is an embryo not necessarily a fetus, certainly not a baby. A zygote or embryo are no more a babies than a seed or a sprout are trees or even saplings.

The salient question is on what grounds does anything have rights. According to Locke, humans have rights because of our ability to be rational. It is not until the third trimester or fourth quarter of pregnancy that the fetus has enough braincells to differentiate it from the lower animals and to eventually think rationally when enough connections are made between those existing braincells. Before then, there are not enough braincells to support eventual rational thought using those braincells alone, nor to support any claim of rights for the fetus on the basis of eventual rational capacity prior to the existence of enough braincells to accomplish that capacity. After the existence of enough braincells to support rational thought, those braincells would possess rights because rational thought would eventually be possible by those braincells, alone, even if it takes more time for those braincells to make the actual connections. The actual physical entity qualifying for rights would exist at that time, sometime between 2/3 and 3/4 of the way through.

[Rob Misek]

Locke. Really? Hahaha

Thankfully our understanding of human rights have changed in the last 400 years.

Seriously, Fuck!

[Nelson]

“Baby: b. An unborn child; a fetus.”

Yes, you’ve used that Free Dictonary definition before. A "dictionary" that can be edited by anyone on the internet at any time is literally the only one that mentions an “unborn” baby or fetus in the definition. But you want the one with no credibility to be the one everyone accepts?. Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Britannica, Collins (you know, real dictionaries) don’t say anything about fetuses. Hell even Dictionary.com doesn’t. When one source says something and every other source says something completely different, accepting the outlier says a lot about you, none of it good.

“What can’t you understand about the current state of a living baby being viable within the mother?”

I don’t know, maybe the part where the definition of fetal viability specifically means outside the womb? When you argue that a word or phrase means the exact opposite of the actual definition, it’s pretty clearly a bad argument. If you are talking about fetal viability, by definition you are not talking about “within the mother”. You can’t be incapable of understanding that, can you?

“I have demonstrated that your genocidal definition only defines a stage in the baby’s development”

No, you have demonstrated your inability to understand basic concepts, simple definitions, and credible arguments. Viability is a statement about the condition of a thing at that moment, be it a species, a business, a fetus, an alternative, or any other noun.

“and contradicts not only logic”

Using real definitions and concepts is logical. You fon’t do that.

“but the fertility experts”

Fertility experts speak about a viable pregnancy. You want that to mean a viable fetus. The aren’t the same thing, which is made clear by the fact that they aren’t the same word. Most people understand that different words with different definitions mean different things. Because that’s how language works.

“and every other use of the term viable”

Every use of the word “viable” with the eord “fetus” means the exact opposite of what you say it does. You can’t even understand that “outside of the womb” absolutely doesn’t mean “within the mother” or “within the womb. It seems simple to understand, but you manage to fail at comprehension.

“Nothing else is expected to be viable when attacked and destroyed which is exactly the only way a baby leaves the mother before it’s ready.”

73% of fertilized eggs do not become living, breathing human beings. And those are just the ones conceived naturally and not aborted. A huge number of fertilized eggs/zygotes from fertility treatments are never implanted, either. The number pf ways and methods by which a fertilized egg fails to become a real human being is legion. Saying it’s only of a fetus is aborted is dishonest. Believing it is mind-boggling stupidity.

“Only murder advocates like you use viable in that way.”

No, only people who accept that words have meanings use viable the way I do. Only people with a political purpose misuse language the way you do.

“You haven’t refuted anything that I’ve said.”

Clearly I’ve refuted everything you’ve said. Your inability to understand is your failure, not mine.

“Your baseless denial of correctly applied logic an science demonstrates that you have no interest in recognizing reality.”

Logic, science, and the meaning of words are all absent from your posts. If one person understands that words have meanings (like me) and the other wants to claim that words mean the exact opposite of their actual definitions (like you), it’s clear who doesn’t want to recognize reality.

“I’m pleased with the optics of this discussion.”

To be fair, you’re also certain that no one has ever refuted your Holocaust denials, so that doesn’t surprise me. You seem completely comfortable with looking like an idiot.

[Rob Misek]

The dictionary has simply refuted your ridiculous claim.

If you want to refute the dictionary, prove with correctly applied logic and science that a baby is not also “an unborn child, a fetus”.

Until then YOU REMAIN REFUTED. Hahaha

Like I have refuted your genocidal and improperly used definition of viability when applied to a fetus.

Like this.

Viable:

able to work as intended or able to succeed:

able to continue to exist as or develop into a living being:

These are the ONLY definitions of viable in the Cambridge dictionary. They therefore apply in all contexts.

A viable pregnancy works as intended by going to full term resulting in the live birth of a baby. Exactly similarly a viable fetus works as intended inside the mother during pregnancy growing and emerging at birth.

Nothing works as intended aka is viable when it is intentionally destroyed as removing a baby from it’s mother prematurely does.

Only your chosen genocidal definition of a viable fetus changes the basic meaning of viable, to require that a baby is can live when it is intentionally killed, in a feeble attempt to justify the genocide of the unborn.

That is the improper use of language.

I have successfully refuted your genocidal definition of viable with correctly applied logic and science.

How many babies die of natural causes is completely irrelevant to any discussion about intentional abortion. They occur when a medical condition results in the pregnancy aka baby is no longer viable. Note they occur while the baby is still inside the mother and as natural causes can NEVER be considered murder. In stark contrast to intentional abortion.

Your 75% statement is refuted as irrelevant.

Clearly you haven’t refuted anything that I’ve said while I have refuted everything that you have.

I have reality on my side buddy, you’ll never refute it.

[TheReEncogitationer]

Just so you know in case you didn't, Nelson:

Herr Misek thinks that a hypothetical zygote fertilized from a sperm and an egg in a Petri dish and either replanted in a womb or vat-grown would have a right to life...as long as the sperm and the egg both came from Gentiles.

Whereas a real, actual, viable, born, living 120-year-old who may have an idea that would save all of humanity has no right to life...if this person were living in a land ruled by Nazism between 1933 and 1945 and were of a people whom Herr Misek regards as Satanic called The Jews.

Farting in the wind is more substantive than debating with Herr Misek. After lampooning him, I always just bid him a healthy, hearty: "Fuck Off, Nazi!" and go on my merry way.

[Rob Misek]

Nelson has cut and run, having had his face rubbed in his own bullshit by correctly applied logic and science.

Now your turn. Do what you’re good at.

You can’t refute anything I say.
You are full of hot air.

So fuck off Kol Nidre boy.

[TheReEncogitationer]

Nelson most likely seen what a delusional psychopath you are, even before I told him who you are. Not everybody is as dumb as you think they are.

Fuck Off, Nazi!

[Nelson]

To be fair, I'm visiting my family in Chicago. Like most people with lives outside the internet, I am often busy for many hours at a time. Typing while driving is a terrible idea. Posting while you are cooking and eating breakfast with your family is rude. And buying groceries for the Bechamel base of our Mac and cheese is far more important than pointing out Rob's insane beliefs (regarding abortion as well as the Holocaust).

[Rob Misek]

You never have refuted anything that I’ve said, on any thread including this one.

The only way to prove you have is to simply link to the thread and describe specifically what you think you’ve refuted and how.

Like on this thread, you said that the unborn aren’t defined as babies. I demonstrated a definition that does exactly that. You are refuted.

Get it?

[Bruce D]

Rob, read my refutation and analysis of when rights are rationally supportable, above.

[Rob Misek]

Do you think that regurgitating 400 year old perspectives on human rights refutes anything.

Slavery much?

[Nelson]

"You never have refuted anything that I’ve said, on any thread including this one."

Of course not. Tell me again about how the Holocaust never happened and my pointing out thousands and thousands of sources and documents, including the words of the Nazis who carried it out, aren't a refutation of your beliefs?

"you said that the unborn aren’t defined as babies. I demonstrated a definition that does exactly that. You are refuted."

The Free Dictionary, which can be edited by anyone at any time, is literally the only one that says "baby" means a fetus. Every single other dictionary (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Britannica, and the list goes on) don't. But you think your point is valid? Even Wikipedia has more safeguards against false information than the Free Dictionary. How clueless are you?

You really don't seem to understand what "refuted" means. Here's the definition from a real dictionary.

"refute
verb [ T ] formal
US /rɪˈfjuːt/ UK /rɪˈfjuːt/
Add to word list
to say or prove that a person, statement, opinion, etc. is wrong or false:
to refute a person/theory/argument/claim

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/refute

[Rob Misek]

You nor anyone else have never refuted anything that I HAVE SAID.

If you still think you have, then simply post a link to the discussion and specifically describe what and how something I’ve said was refuted.

That all you need to do. We apparently agree of the definition of refute. Why can’t you or anyone else prove your baseless claim that you have refuted anything that I’ve said?

[TheReEncogitationer]

Your time is indeed well spent. Enjoy the Bechamel Mac and Cheese on this Labor Day and don't let Herr Misek's --or Chicago's--lunacy ruin your appetite.
🙂

[Nelson]

Thank you. It was amazing, and a great way to celebrate with family. I hope your day was awesome as well.

[TheReEncogitationer]

By the way, Blofeld, you forgot to say: "Nelson has cut and run...and never once called me 'Mother!'"
🙂

And another "By the way": The Nazi practiced the Totalitarian tenet of "What Is Not Forbidden Is Mandatory." While they forbade abortion to the Aryan Pure Superwomen Breeders, they made abortion mandatory for "Degenerate Non-Aryan" women in the death camps, such as the all-female Ravensbrück.

Sooo...Is "all life" really "precious" to Anti-Abortionists like yourself?

Chew on that and Fuck Off, Nazi!

[Rob Misek]

Always the perpetual victim.

Poor Kol Nidre boy.

[Paloma]

So under your definition, anyone who gets an abortion should get the death penalty? Or maybe just life in prison.

[Rob Misek]

Punished like any murderer? Yes absolutely!

[Nelson]

And how would that happen, since abortion literally doesn't meet the legal definition of murder? Which laws would you change and what would the downstream effects of those changes on other situations like child support or the mother taking prescribed medication that are seteimental to the fetus before she knows she's pregnant?

[Rob Misek]

Do you think that a viable baby is a person?

[Nelson]

Yes. But viability doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

[Rob Misek]

Hahaha

Sure it does.

Can you explain yourself?

[Bruce D]

Before the existence of enough actual braincells to at least eventually have the capacity for rational thought, no rights can exist, except if there is an entity that can generate those braincells independent of the mother.

[Rob Misek]

Still regurgitating 400 year old perspectives on human rights?

[Rob Misek]

At least Nelson was refuted trying to argue against logic and science using what he thought was logic.

You can’t even claim to have done that.

What the fuck does age or intelligence have to do with being human and having inalienable human rights?

When you’re senile, losing most of your brain function (it ain’t much) will you also lose your right to life?

[TheReEncogitationer]

Herr Misek, lemme get this straight: You support forcing women to bear a pregnancy for 9 months, you wax apologetic about a Totalitarian system of forced labor, yet claim to be against slavery? And at the same time you claim to be an exemplar of "correctly applied logic and science?"

Pardon Me While I Laugh
https://youtu.be/QTqG9clPWDU?si=OkUYcEsYk27c8RXl

And Fuck Off, Nazi!

[Rob Misek]

You’re the one here advocating the murder of the helpless and innocent Kol Nidre boy.

Not me.

[TheReEncogitationer]

Herr Misek would probably support monthly OB-GYN exams to asuure that women don't have "accidents" and miscarry, á la Romania's Dictator Nicolai Ceauşescu.

Then, if one gets pregnant, he would probably support putting pregnant woman in a rubber room with a straight-jacket and IVs for nourishment to assure that she keep her pregnancy to term.

If a woman misses her period, he'll probably have cops slogging around in sewage searching for flushed zygotes.

And if an abortion still happens despite all this, then the woman and that abortionist and everyone vaguely connected with them would be put in special camps to work on their concentration on his "correctly applied science and logic."

Now you know why Herr Misek is so loved around here and why I hope he takes The Ceauşescu Challenge with the same Brothers Grimm fairy tale Happy ending.

[Rob Misek]

You, the one advocating murder of the helpless and innocent, need to have perpetual bogeymen so you can be the perpetual victim.

Poor twisted Kol Nidre boy.

[TheReEncogitationer]

You still labor under the delusion that I'm Jewish, so turn yourself in for lying to yourself.

Fuck Off, Nazi!

[TheReEncogitationer]

You are an apologist and supporter of ghouls and monsters responsible for the murder of over 11 million actual, born, living, viable human beings outside of wombs, including 6 million Jews, plus 5 million+ Slavs, Poles, Russians, Roma, Sindi, Homosexuals, the physically and mentally infirm, political dissenters, business leaders, labor leaders, and, yes, all German/"Aryan" women who may have died from illegal abortions because of bans on abortion imposed by these ghouls and monsters.

Fuck Off, Nazi!

[Rob Misek]

I have considered that bullshit story and refuted it with the evidence of correctly applied logic and science. Nobody has ever refuted my statements.

Jews had been publicly claiming a holocaust of 6 million Jews in various nations no less than 166 times between 1900 and 1945. Only to coerce sympathy to raise money. Like the wastes of skin who fake cancer on go fund me pages.

What’s the probability after being proven lying about 6 million Jewish deaths by holocaust over 166 times that the 167th claim is true? Better to buy a lottery ticket. Though the bullshiit narrative has been like a lottery bonanza for Jews.

Fuck off Kol Nidre boy.

[Nelson]

"Nobody has ever refuted my statements."

Everyone has refuted your statements because they are easily refuted.

There is a vast, uncrossable gulf between people refuting you (reality) and you accepting that people have refuted you.

[Rob Misek]

Prove it. You can’t.

[SQRLSY One]

The dishonest cunts here are the ones who won't plainly speak what they mean. If they were honest, they'd say, "Cunts and wombs and Fallopian tubes and ovaries and follicles and such? They ALL belong to the IMPORTANT PEOPLE, which are the law-makers and law-enforcers of Alabama! Now GET IN LINE, ye lowly peons!"

[Mother's Lament]

Aren't you the piece of shit who disingenuously insists fetuses and even third-trimester babies are nothing more than "fartilized egg smell"? And you're trying to lecture us on word games?

Fuck you, hypocrite.

[SQRLSY One]

And YOU are the one who has told us that there is NO difference between "murdering" a freshly fartilized HUMAN egg smell, and murdering a full-grown human. And that the PUNISHMENT should be the SAME, for these 2 offenses!

Deny it, Perfect Lying Bitch! And tell us ALL about how "God" told You that, Ye Perfect Christian Theologian!

[Mother's Lament]

“freshly fartilized HUMAN egg smell”

Exactly!

In your own words you’re “The dishonest cunt here… who won’t plainly speak what (you) mean. If (you) were honest, (you’d) say, “Fetuses, cunts and wombs and Fallopian tubes and ovaries and follicles and such”.

Fucking dishonest hypocrite.

[SQRLSY One]

QUESTIONS THAT THE FANATICS WON’T EVER ANSWER: What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell? Ditto the punishments for likewise killing a fertilized egg of an ape… A monkey… A rat… An insect… If your Righteous Punishments From on High are DIFFERENT in these cases, then WHY? WHERE do the differences come from? And what gives YOU (or the 51% of the voters) the right to punish the rest of us?

Never, ever, have I gotten any serious answers, when I pose these questions, about what the PUNISHMENTS should be! (Could it be that the fanatics don’t want us to focus on THEIR obsession, which is their smug and self-righteous “punishment boners”?). Also, the unwillingness to answer questions is strongly indicative of authoritarianism. At the root here is the unmistakable attitude of “Because I said so, peons! Do NOT question your Rulers!”

‘Cause “God” told You that, right, Ye Perfect Christian Theologian?!

And when God tells ME that we should NOT turn women into womb-slaves, MY God doesn’t count, right, Countess Cunt? Only the God of Countess Cunt counts!

[Mother's Lament]

I answered those questions a dozen times already, you lazy fuck, and you know I have. So have others.

Time to get off your slothful ass and write some new copypasta.

[SQRLSY One]

"I answered those questions a dozen times already..."

With NOTHING more than babble 'cause God (or "rights" or "obvious", etc.), 'cause... That's ALL that Perfect You has got! Now SHOW Yer Perfect Math!

You have NOT, you utter liar! You treasure the unborn HUMANS, and NOT other conscious beings, 'cause "God" told you to! (You just won't admit it). And you worshit fartilized egg smells 'cause "God" likewise told you to do so! Just like "God" (or the angels) told Abraham to sacrifice (kill) Isaac! If you read the 11th chapter of "Judges", you will SEE that the ancient Israelites practiced human sacrifice (actually carried out the deed in this case); apparently "God" told them to do so! Of an already BORN human, in this case! If "God" tells me to sacrifice my already-born daughter, these days, they (rightly) put me in the loony bin! WHY are SOME people allowed to blame God for their evils, and others are NOT?

Do you know what consciousness is? A soul? Whether it even exists? When it sets in, exactly? What happens to the soul in case of a natural abortion? Ditto an induced abortion? What happens to the souls of abortion doctors who SAVE THE LIVES of women, so that they can give birth to viable babies in the future, while killing a non-viable fertilized egg cell in an ectopic pregnancy? What happens to the souls of babies that COULD have been born, but weren't, 'cause someone killed the abortion doctors, and these mothers were dead, and so, they couldn't give future viable births? What happens to the souls of much-wanted babies that WOULD be here, but aren't, if (fertilized-egg-killing or discarding) in-vitro fertilization is prevented by fanatics? How many souls are saved by punishing those who kill fertilized egg cells, and how MUCH punishment is needed? Do only HUMANS have souls? (Substitute "rights" for "souls" here at any place, if you want to keep it secular.) ... If you can use DATA FROM THE REAL WORLD to answer ANY of these questions, authoritatively, then you have some Nobel Prizes waiting for You!
Lacking ANY of this data, do you think that MAYBE you could restrain your self-righteous "punishment boner" just a wee tad?

Does God have a boss? What would have happened if God’s Boss had aborted him? Trans-migration to animals? Etc. … Yet MORE Nobel Prizes waiting for You!

[Mother's Lament]

(You just won’t admit it)

Here's where Shillsy gives himself license to start making shit up.

"cause “God” told you to!"

No, because any biology textbook in the world tells us.
Also, it's pretty gutsy of you to invoke "God", when you believe a Birth Canal Fairy magically bestows life and humanity as the "fart smell" passes through.
Pro-choice denial of humanity is religious belief not based in any science.

"Do you know what consciousness is?"

Yes I do, and if you're using a temporary lack of consciousness as justification to kill someone, that means it's fair game to kill you while you sleep tonight.

A soul? What happens to the soul in case of a natural abortion? What happens to the souls of abortion doctors.

Who the fuck cares? You're bringing souls into this you crank, not me. First you whine about God, and then you start babbling about souls.

a non-viable fertilized egg cell in an ectopic pregnancy?

Several developmental stages have already passed by the time of an ectopic pregnancy and it is an embryo in arrested development or already dead, not a fertilized cell you ignorant fuck. Also, salpingostomies or salpingectomies are the treatment. Not abortion.

However, you didn't resort to posting canned copypasta this time. Good job retard.

[SQRLSY One]

QUESTIONS THAT THE FANATICS WON’T EVER ANSWER: What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell? Ditto the punishments for likewise killing a fertilized egg of an ape… A monkey… A rat… An insect… If your Righteous Punishments From on High are DIFFERENT in these cases, then WHY? WHERE do the differences come from? And what gives YOU (or the 51% of the voters) the right to punish the rest of us?

NONE answered... Not a ONE!!! Your "answers" about PUNISHMENT (when once every blue moon) You give them... are PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!! "Biology" can not, and will not, answer these questions! Only Your Perfectly Self-Righteous Punishment Clitoris can answer me these questions three!

[Rob Misek]

Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.

“The unconscious defense mechanism of denying the existence of painful facts.This technique enables an individual to escape from intolerable thoughts, wishes, actions, or events and the anxiety which they produce. In denying their existence he is not lying or malingering, nor does he deliberately repudiate the ideas or consciously dismiss them from mind. He simply fails to perceive that they exist.”

You’re worse. You deny the existence of human beings to justify their genocide in your sick mind.

I’ll bet that you’re a diagnosed schizophrenic.

[Paloma]

Sleep is not the same as a not having consciousness.
People who are on life support with no chance of being revived are taken off life support Al the time.
I'm not for terminating pregnancies of viable fetuses but embryos before three months are in a similar state of consciousness as those on life support and have not experienced consciousness yet. It's not the same as murdering a child.

[Libertariantranslator]

Bog fights on side with heaviest artillery. --Robert Heinlein

[SQRLSY One]

Hey Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer, AKA Mother's Lament, with a PERFECT Head Full of Cement...

Helpful suggestion just fur YE:
If Ye ever start a Girl's Garage Band, a good band-name for Ye might be, "Countess Cunt and the Perfect Womb Slaves"!

[Mother's Lament]

Here's a helpful suggestion for you, roast the children at a lower temperature so they're not too dry, and too much gingerbread house might affect their flavour.

[Libertariantranslator]

Plucky Squirrel taken in by female-bullying female impersonator sockpuppet?

[Dillinger]

>>"If someone was promoting themselves out as a funder of abortion out of state, then that is potentially criminally actionable for us,"

what if I do it from Texas?

[mad.casual]

Do you not know what "local talk radio" means? Some might call taking someone's speech to a defined audience and extrapolating it out of context to be disingenuous, if not plainly dishonest.

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

Did this end up in the wrong spot?

[Dillinger]

nope.

[mad.casual]

As I indicated at the top, with ENB's (and the abortion rights movement's) descent into innuendo and self-defeating oxymorons, it's hard to tell anymore.

An AL state AG talking about criminal conspiracy to an AL audience would seem to make the "What if I raise funds for out of state abortions from TX?" rather obvious. And even if it doesn't, between gun control, drug prohibition, illegal immigration, RICO Climate Charges, RICO campaign charges, etc., etc., etc. the selective freakout about *abortion* seems like another exceedingly biased dose of Reason/Mass Media, bulk-standard, fake news, celebratory parallax.

Do you or ENB or whomever have a specific example of him saying he's going to go after abortion-providers and/or fundraisers in TX or elsewhere the way we have Beto O' Rorke on a national stage saying "Hell yeah, we're coming for your guns." and the winner of the general election saying, "You'd need an F-18." or is this yet another case of "We, the vast swath of the media, carried water, delayed, and deferred everything the DNC did for almost 7 yrs. and running but... OMG! Did you see what the podunk sheriff did to a no-name corner news stand in Kansas!"?

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

No, it just seemed to me that your response could potentially make more sense applied to "windycityattorney"s comment above, where they spoke of the AG claiming "he has a right to pursue criminal conspiracy charges against people who help Alabama residents procure out of state abortions" though that was on a radio show. So it was that commenter responding to you, and your mention in this reply of "local talk radio" that made me wonder if it was in the wrong place.

*shrug*

Aaaaand, now I've definitely overexplained that...

[mad.casual]

[Mother's Lament]

Imagine if ENB thought that election interference, the assault on free speech, political prosecutions, and vice presidents taking bribes and selling influence were as big a deal, libertarian-wise, as having third trimester babies killed.

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2]

ENB isn't a delusional Trump-Tard.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

No, she's still delusional though, in this case for abortion up until birth (magical birth canal fairy) and for sex workers.

[Mother's Lament]

The delusional are freakshows like you, Plugstick, who think that killing babies for convenience is A-okay; but legally contesting election results, in the courts, using precedents established in the 1870s, 1960, and 2000 deserves four indictments and one hundred million in legal bills.

[SQRLSY One]

Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer, AKA Mother’s Lament, with a PERFECT Head Full of Cement, says that MAGA (Making Attorneys Get Attorneys) lawyers are ENTITLED to LIE IN COURT!!! She says this Ass A Perfect Christian Theologian, no less…

https://reason.com/2022/02/11/sidney-powell-disowns-her-kraken-saying-she-is-not-responsible-for-her-phony-story-of-a-stolen-election/ (Yet another Powell article)

https://reason.com/2021/03/23/sidney-powell-says-shes-not-guilty-of-defamation-because-no-reasonable-person-would-have-believed-her-outlandish-election-conspiracy-theory/ Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory Which particular lies are you wanting to hear and believe today, hyper-partisan Wonder Child?

WHY do you evil people love it SOOOOO much when lawyers LIE in court? Is it the lawyers that You love, the lies, or both?

Conspiracy theories or cunt-spermacy theories; which appeal to ye the MOISTEST?!?!? And twat does Spermy Daniels say about tit all? Are Ye Perfectly titillated yet?

[Mother's Lament]

Sidney Powell was right, you fascist nut. Stop stealing elections and stop prosecuting people for pointing it out.

Now go to Sicknick's grave and sing the "Die Fahne hoch".

[Nelson]

"but legally contesting election results, in the courts, using precedents established in the 1870s, 1960, and 2000 deserves four indictments and one hundred million in legal bills."

The "legally contesting" part ended with every case (except one, I believe, for a process issue) ending with an L for Trump. It's all the extrajudicial stuff that he's in trouble for. As he should be.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

How about a delusional anti-Trump-tard? You should know.

[Libertariantranslator]

She's got my vote!

[Michael Ejercito]

Imagine prosecutors stretching the definition of conspiracy to the brink of incoherence.

[windycityattorney]

Imagine prosecutors taking a legal stance that has already been recently shot down by federal courts on a similar fact pattern.

Precedent: how does it work?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Following Reason’s links, the precedent seems to come from the U. S. District Court for the district of Idaho.

[windycityattorney]

Yes and the Idaho decision would be persuasive authority (precedent). Which the district court in Alabama can take judicial notice of.

Sometimes the similarity of the issue is what is important. Someone else already did the legal analysis. The precedents that the Idaho court relied on to reach its conclusion will be many of the same ones the Alabama district court would need to rely on to reach its conclusion... all tending to reaching the same legal result.

[soldiermedic76]

Idaho was a state court. Rarely does a state court provide precedence for another state court. Also, precedence isn't law.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How are those legal studies going?

Windy didn't say it was "mandatory" authority. I don't know how judges think, but a law clerk advising a judge would probably relish the opportunity to adopt the reasoning already established by another court, provided it was indeed "persuasive".

In this case, you can almost assume without serious risk that if a grandstanding Repuglican AG is advocating it, it's probably not legally sound.

[SQRLSY One]

We need an "underground railroad" to smuggle the womb-slaves OUT of Alabama! Where is Harriet Tubman when we need her?

Are ANY of ye "out there" perhaps the reincarnation of Harriet Tubman? ***HELP***!!!!!!!!!!

[Mother's Lament]

"womb-slaves"

Everyone knows what the only biological purpose of fucking is, Skullsy. These people are no more slaves than someone who regrets a haircut choice and now wants to kill the stylist.

[SQRLSY One]

And YOU are the PERFECT kind of Bitch who wants to involve Government Almighty in satisfying YOUR Perfect "Punishment Clitoris", so that You can Perfectly THRILL to PUNISHING (hurting) those who aren't ass PERFECT ass YOU! Whether it be for their hairstyle, their whorestyle, or their "murdered" fartilized egg smells!

Have You ever yet Perfectly fingered out that Your (Self-supposed) PERFECTION is why NO ONE could ever stand the BAD SMELL of the idea of getting married to Perfect You? ... Karma IN ACTION, Perfect Punishment-Lusting Bitch!

[Mother's Lament]

What the hell are you babbling about? Unlike a certain lunatic, I've never shared my private life with you.

[SQRLSY One]

Not only was no one willing to put up with Your Perfect Perfection, to this point... ALSO, no one was EVER Perfect enough for You!

[Nelson]

"Everyone knows what the only biological purpose of fucking is, Skullsy."

Yes, pleasure. The purpose of over 99% of sexual intercourse is for pleasure, not procreation.

This may be the only time this phrase has ever been meant literally, but no one ONLY has sex to reproduce. Even you aren't fanatic enough to claim otherwise. I think.

[Libertariantranslator]

We actually had an underground railroad to smuggle Americans threatened with press-gang conscription into Canada. Now the railroad helps women escape North Dakota into Canada!

[mad.casual]

Precedent: how does it work?

By forcing Democratic politicians and bureaucrats to pretend it doesn't exist.

Again, I'm not a "conspiracy" theorist I'm a "Between DACA, mask mandates, student loan forgiveness, pretty much all the crimes Hunter Biden's committed, half the crimes Trump hasn't committed, half the crimes HRC committed, and half the crimes W committed, this shit doesn't add up and it's obvious." theorist.

[Nelson]

That's a very wordy way to say "conspiracy theorist".

[Libertariantranslator]

Alabama and Texas both had laws against criminals aiding and abetting fugitive slaves too. I hope the record-burning prohibitionists enforce this new one to the hilt. Then, once there are mystical looter politicians strung from lampposts along every road, a repeal vote may succeed.

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

This is no Tweeting about an election, that's for sure.

[Minadin]

Wait until you hear about some of the novel legal theories coming out of Atlanta, New York, DC, and LA area prosecutors these days.

[SRG2]

"Whatabout?"

[Minadin]

Nope.

[SRG2]

Yup. Criticism of legal theory from a right-wing DA is met by you with the response "whatabout?" -wrt legal theories out of ATL and NYC.

[soldiermedic76]

Whataboutism is not necessarily a discrediting argument, when the underlying issues are similar. Pointing out that novel legal theory to promote a crime of conspiracy is bad in abortion but not in the case of Trump, is pointing out selective outrage. The principles are similar enough that to be consistent one should be nearly equally upset by both miscarriages of justice. Dismissing this as simple whataboutism is a way to avoid consistency. Thus, a disingenuous argument.

[Nelson]

“Pointing out that novel legal theory to promote a crime of conspiracy is bad in abortion but not in the case of Trump”

A conspiracy to help people legally travel to do a legal thing in a legal way in a sane state where individual rights aren’t infringed on? I’m missing the part whete someone conspired to do something illegal.

If someone pays for gas for someone else to cross state lines from a state where buying fireworks is illegal into a state where purchasing fireworks is legal, they aren’t engaging in a criminal conspiracy.

What Trump has been accused of is illegal in every place he engaged in the behavior. The jury will decide if there is enough proof to convict, but there's no "it's legal where he did it" argument.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I appreciate that Trumptonians never knew it existed until recently, but conspiracy isn't a "novel legal theory".

[Libertariantranslator]

Prosecutor Mabel Willebrandt argued in "The Inside of Prohibition" that the prohibition agencies relied too much on conspiracy indictments. Her column waa syndicated in some 2 dozen newspapers (remember newspapers?) in August and September of 1929.

[SRG2]

But in this instance, whataboutism is being used to deflect - as it isn't relevant to the case in point.

[Minadin]

Prosecutors adding 'conspiracy' charges isn't relevant to another abuse where prosecutors are adding 'conspiracy' charges?

That's your position?

[SRG2]

No. My position is that if there's a discussion about a particular case, switching attention to another case for agenda'ed purposes is whataboutism.

[Bruce D]

Definition: whataboutism - accurate perspectivism

[BYODB]

what·a·bout·ism
/ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/
noun BRITISH
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

Note that this is not a formal fallacy of any kind. It's merely stupid.

In this case, it might be notable that state AG are mostly phony baloney assholes looking to climb the political ladder and you don't do that by actually doing your stated job description.

For example, Kamala Harris became Vice President of the United States by sleeping around and giving out blowjobs to the correct politicians. She was Attorney General for California and a Senator because of her oral sex skills and is lauded as the first female VP of the USA.

That's what you should expect from State AG. They will literally blow someone for higher office and are among some of the most morally bankrupt assholes in the nation and it doesn't matter what side of the aisle they're on.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Certainly plays out...

[Minadin]

Pointing out that someone is inconsistently or selectively applying their principles is not whataboutism.

If I were to always decry the abuse of, say, civil asset forfeiture, when it's applied against people whose activities I favor, and ignore the abuse when it's applied against people whose activities I disfavor, I'm not presenting a principled argument against the practice, I'm just revealing my biases.

Here's an example that you can perhaps relate to:

It's like (some) pro-life advocates who believe that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion should be totally illegal. But, they are totally ok with exceptions for rape or incest. If their principle is really the first thing, why the second?

[Dillinger]

"whatabout" is perfect for injustice.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So much for leaving abortion up to the democratic process in each state.

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2]

Why not leave it up to the individual? That would be too libertarian?

[Mickey Rat]

Decriminalize murder! The guarding a human individual's right to life is way too authoritarian!

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Progressives already decriminalized theft and assault, so murder is just another incremental step.

Of course all "crimes" are now determined and judged based on skin color, so lynching dingers will still be a capital offense. Also probably writing about lynching dingers.

[Pear Satirical]

From what I've seen of DAs like Pamela Price, murder has effectively been decriminalized.

[Bruce D]

Before the third trimester it's not murder. Insufficient existing braincells to eventually support rationality or differentiate from lower animals.

[Libertariantranslator]

Only the libertarian party platform demanded repeal of antiabortion laws in 1972 and 1976, when our popularity increased by a factor of 40!

[Jerryskids]

If Trump's legal troubles have taught me anything, it's that criminal conspiracies don't actually need a predicate crime. And that an attorney advising his client to take up a position contrary to the state's position is part of the criminal conspiracy. And that to have standing to sue, you have to show actual harm and not just the threat of harm.

[Social Justice is neither]

And what Reason has taught us is all these things are fine and true libertarian positions to be celebrated, not scorned or fought.

[Pear Satirical]

Don't forget asking for phone numbers and telling people to watch a news network.

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2]

Alabama-stan home of the American Taliban.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Cite?

[Mother's Lament]

No, that's California. Figuratively and literally.

[raspberrydinners]

It would be more entertaining if you guys even tried with your replies.

[Mother's Lament]

How am I wrong, Tony?

[Franklin Brinkhaus]

raspberrydinners was outed as a shreek/cytotoxic (dba chemjeff) sock. Notice how it replies to shreek to hump his leg all the time? Just like every other one of the retard's socks?

[Libertariantranslator]

Another potty-mouth Lewser sock meets the Mute button.

[Liberty_Belle]

Apply all gun law restrictions to mirror abortion law restrictions. That is the only way to get some sanity out of these people.

PS - In before "Abortion is not a Constitutional right." Yes, yes, I know; and that is completely irrelevant to the hyperbole.

[damikesc]

Nah, it's pretty relevant. One is a constitutional right, one is not. A constitutional right has more protections than something that is legal but not a right.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Apply all abortion law restrictions to mirror gun law restrictions. That is the only way to get some sanity out of these people.

[soldiermedic76]

No abortions until your 18. If you're 18-21 must go through an extended background check. Must fill out a background sheet with personal information that has to be stored in order to get an abortion. Can't assist someone else to get an abortion, especially if they are a prohibited person. A long list of prohibited people can't get an abortion. Ambiguous rules that the BATFE can change at whim ad to what is and isn't an abortion. Extra taxes on abortions. Have to present a state ID to purchase an abortion. Attempts to limit how many abortions you can get, what those abortions look like cosmetically and how many fetuses you can abort at a single time (ban high capacity abortions). Red flag laws for abortions. Etc? I'm sure that's what he means, right?

[THX1138]

You forgot “no abortions if you’re a drug user”.

[Pear Satirical]

Unless you're the kid of a Democrat president.

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

Or a felon. Or an illegal alien.

[soldiermedic76]

May want to rethink that bucko, as assisting someone to purchase a firearm out of state that their state bans is already a crime, in fact it's a federal crime.

[mad.casual]

Even further, the going interpretation of “Full Faith And Credit” assumes the most burdensome and rights-infringing approach for the right in question.

Analogously, businesses entirely contained in any other state, serving AL customers must legally comply with AL laws on abortion or risk federal regulation/prosecution.

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

But are you really surprised that a leftard doesn't understand gun laws?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Most laws are not based on citizenship or residence, but maybe the laws you're referring to are?

But it can't be illegal to assist someone to do something in your state which that person can legally do in your state. For example, you can legally bang all the hookers in Pahrump you want, even if you don't live there.

[Nelson]

This is why a significant percentage of guns used for crimes in Chicago are purchased in Indiana. It's only about 15-20 minutes away (an hour in typical traffic) and they have much more lax gun laws. As long as you aren't straw purchasing, there's nothing illegal about legally buying a gun in Indiana and bringing it to Chicago.

[Crackers Boy]

Only "long guns" (ie. rifles and shotguns) can be purchased legally "out of state", and then only from an FFL holder. Handguns cannot be purchased outside of "your" state, again, from an FFL holder. Most of the "gun laws" I think you are referring to are Federal laws, not State laws anyway.

CB

[Nelson]

You can't buy a gun in, for example, Florida and bring it to Pennsylvania? That would be news to my partner's BIL, who brought his handgun with him when he moved from Florida to Pennsylvania.

[Crackers Boy]

Bring? or Buy? If your BIL is a resident of Pennsylvania, Federal law says he can travel to Florida, or any of the 48 other states, and buy a long gun from a licensed dealer. Federal law (apparently) also says he can NOT travel to Florida, and buy a handgun from an FFL holder. What he does with it after he buys it (the long gun, or the Federally illegally obtained handgun) in Florida is up to him. (IANAL and do not offer legal advice to others. I just know what I need to know to take care of me.)

CB

[mad.casual]

You know what's funnier than tards stepping in their own bullshit? Watching their tard friends stumble in trying to help them.

Pahrump doesn't care if you bang all the hookers you want in Pahrump, but if hometown wants you for prostitution, solicitation, child trafficking, or even the wife thinks you're cheating and/or skipped out on alimony, you better believe Pahrump isn't going to keep you around to bang their hookers and, unless your last name is Biden, whatever happened in Pahrump almost certainly will not stay in Pahrump.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

No, I want you to apply your abortion law logic to any other activity that most people willingly do for fun and then wish to skate on the consequences.

[Franklin Brinkhaus]

So you want women to have to wait until they are 18 years old for a first trimester abortion, 21 years old for a third trimester abortion, submit to a background check, get fingerprinted, fill out registration paperwork, and get a tax stamp and permit for certain kinds of abortions, Hugh Akston/HazelMeade? You sure you thought this one through all the way, you mindless cunt?

[damikesc]

"Apply all gun law restrictions to mirror abortion law restrictions. That is the only way to get some sanity out of these people."

So, waiting periods before abortions. Must demonstrate actual medical need (you have to prove you're legally permitted to own a firearm, after all). If you committed a felony, no abortions for you. States can heavily limit your abortions.

I'm on board.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Reason stands against prosecutors using novel legal theories to take down their ideological enemies. Noted.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Di-guy thinks conspiracy is a "novel legal theory". Noted.

[raspberrydinners]

Christofascists up to no good, per usual.

[Mother's Lament]

Yeah, they're enacting censorship, castrating little boys, enacting injection mandates, interfering in elections, prosecuting political opponents, jailing people without trial, burning houses of worship, killing babies and pushing pedophilia...
Oh, no wait...

Sorry that's the actual fascists on Team Blue.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Christofascists

I'm not saying you're a sock, but you know who else uses that term?

[Mother's Lament]

And then they wonder why all the Evangelicals run to Trump for protection instead of voting for them.

[Franklin Brinkhaus]

The stupid fucker got this one outed in that spectacularly humiliating thread a couple weeks ago along with his nearly 2 dozen other socks. It's yet another shreek/cytotoxic (dba chemjeff) sock.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're all socks to me.

(And you are actually someone's sock, if I'm not mistaken...)

[Nelson]

That bullshit thread from InsaneTrollLogic where he "outed" a bunch of "socks" was pathetic. I don't think he thiught it through. He kept posting on faked accounts (making a small change to the handle that isn't visually obvious) and saying "here's a sock of Jeffy".

So, what? We were supposed to believe that ITL is some sort of superhacker who got into over 20 accounts that weren't his?

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

And got really mean after it was outed, too. Raspy used to be kind of at least light-heartedly stupid. Now it's just bitter.

[Nelson]

Ah, so you're one of the ones who doesn't understand how obvious ITL's scam was. Is it willful ignorance, or do you just not understand why it's not believable?

[Unicorn Abattoir]

"There is nothing about that law that restricts any individual from driving across state lines" and seeking an abortion, Marshall continued. But an "entity or a group that is using funds…to facilitate" out-of-state abortion travel "is something we are going to look at closely."

What if that facilitating entity is also out-of-state?

[mad.casual]

I don’t understand this. WTF is wrong with you people? Do you mean “out-of-state” like enforcing the federal government’s position on gun control or the federal government’s position on immigration?

You guys act like SCOTUS cited Leviticus unanimously in Dobbs rather than a more split decision between America’s abuelita, Penaltax, and Chevron (and before “I don’t know what a woman is.” joined up).

You know exactly how far an AL AG trying to enforce a ban outside AL is gonna fly. It wouldn’t surprise me, and shouldn’t surprise anyone, if there’s a lawsuit already cooking somewhere to get AL law overturned from outside AL. Probably a doctor misdiagnosing someone as we speak for good measure.

Even from a rather strict libertarian perspective, this is insane.

[Libertariantranslator]

Now you see why anarco-nazis want borders abolished. If someone practices birth control in Canada, redneck Fenians can invade, break stuff, loot and murder like it was January 6 all over again. Dave Smith advocate exactly that (Nick taped it), and ought to run on the Lootveeg fawn Meeces party ticket.

[Mother's Lament]

Purple rainbows keyboard umbrella.

[Franklin Brinkhaus]

It's funny because the only two people murdered on January 6th, 2021 were two unarmed women. One shot in the face by a racist piece of shit black cop, who lucked out and actually had his gun on him instead of leaving it in the shitter for a 4th time in his storied career, and the other beaten to death. Kudos on creating the non-sequitur "anarco[sic]-nazi" though you worthless obsolete decrepit old sack of bootlicking Marxist dog shit.

[Social Justice is neither]

If Trump was part of a criminal conspiracy with his public statements then so are these people.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That's not quite how the law works, but keep trying!

[Jerry B.]

I'd be fine with going back to the rules previously promulgated in Roe., but both sides have moved so far from that, in different directions, that I expect that there will be no consensus for quite a while.

[mad.casual]

BOAF SIDEZ!

The problem is *all* sides, Left, Right, The Science!, Science... have moved away from that originally poor decision.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

As a political compromise, I think the rules previously promulgated in Roe are broadly appropriate for a country like the United States, but it has very little to do with the Constitution, so it was right for the Court to overturn it.

[Vernon Depner]

Yes. Roe was a sound abortion law, but the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be passing laws.

[mad.casual]

No. Roe was a shitty abortion law. Given the stakes, worse than arbitrary 0.08 BACs, 50 plants or 50 kg trafficking, and 21 for alcohol and some firearm purchases, but 18 to vote and enlist.

And it has/had a clear criterion. A human whose heart has stopped is only considered alive until their brainwave functions stop. No heartbeat, no brainwaves, no living human, no murder. No pseudo-religious birth canal fairies. No life begins at conception. The problem is abort-o-freaks, like the death penalty opponents (except the abort-o-freaks actually do want people to die), need to refute science and objectivity in the name of their own righteousness.

[Libertariantranslator]

Alabama could pass for a mohammedan sultanate by replacing KAG caps with rolled up rags.

[AT]

I don't think you can get to a criminal conspiracy on this. It's akin to helping someone pay for their trip to the Nevada sticks so they can legally visit a brothel and sleep with a prostitute.

But what WOULD be an interesting argument is whether or not it would be appropriate to revoke their residency or incorporation on the basis that they're deliberately acting in a non-criminal way that illustrates that they're openly flouting the State's values and community goals, as evidenced by their laws.

Because, really, if you love abortions so much that you make it a point to try to facilitate them out-of-state, then why live in an anti-abortion state? Pack up, move to California, and have abortions to your heart's content. Same goes with gun lovers (or anything else). Not a fan of Chicago gun laws? Texas awaits you my friend!

That was the whole point of fifty states, federalism, and the 10th Amendment.

[Rob Misek]

What don’t you understand about the illegality participating in a conspiracy to commit a crime?

[AT]

I should ask you the same thing. Starting with the words "conspiracy," "commit," and "crime."

If you fly to Vegas, drive out to the sticks, enter a brothel, hire a prostitute, sleep with her - you've committed no crime. If someone funded your expedition to do so, they've not conspired to your non-criminal activity.

They just helped you do a thoroughly disgusting thing for entirely disgusting reasons. Which, frankly, should make you and them a pariah among your local community. Which, as I said, forces us to question why you'd want to BE in such a community in the first place if that's what you're into.

Kind of the same argument I make for running drag queens and woke teachers out of town. If you want to wear ladies clothes and teach your rainbow gospel - or help facilitate people killing tiny humans in utero - fine. But don't expect a welcoming in my community. In fact, expect hostility. I don't care what you do or what you believe, to each their own - I simply deny you a "safe space" to do it.

There are plenty of spaces out there. Mine isn't one of them.

[Rob Misek]

You said”If someone funded your expedition to do so, they’ve not conspired to your non-criminal activity.”

Wrong again Sherlock.

Planning a crime is a crime. Planning something where it’s illegal is a crime.

[AT]

They're not planning something where it's illegal. They're planning something where it IS legal.

[Bruce D]

^This^ It has to be a crime in the jurisdiction committed for it to be a crime at all, nonetheless conspiracy to commit or aid and abet a crime at all.

[Libertariantranslator]

Note to foreign readers: This AT klansman illustrates the warnings given U.S. soldiers occupying Christian Germany: "The Nazi party may be gone, but Nazi thinking, Nazi training and Nazi trickery remains... You will not argue with them. You will not be friendly. ... There will be no fraternization with any of the German people." Reason DOES let them spew war on race suicide here, and damned if they don't expose themselves more explicitly than a Der Sturmer cartoon! The Mute Loser button says: don't argue with mystics, vote!

[Libertariantranslator]

Picture how nuclear-armed Canadians parse this Lebensborn call to racial violence. Realize also that this is the exact same exhortation Mises Caucus hero "Dave Smith" expounded to Reason magazine: anyone and everyone should cross national, state and individual rights borders unresisted, to coerce women on suspicion of fertilization into involuntary servitude at gunpoint to thereby deny them a "safe place." Here with no exaggeration is Hitler's Positive Christianity on display for all to witness, hiding behind a sockpuppet.

[AT]

So, to clarify – if a community of like-minded individuals decides it doesn’t like/want something in said community, outlaws it in such a way that no rights or Constitutional protections are infringed, and discourages others from trying to facilitate that something – that’s Nazism in your book?

I mean, you could have spared us the word salad and just said, “But guys, I really really really really really love abortions. And you should too! Against your will, whether you like it or not!”

Which, ironically, is a lot more closer to Nazism than anything I said. (Kill the undesirables for a more perfect society, am I right?)

[Libertariantranslator]

Reason readers observe that if the 14th Amendment is "word salad," why not the 1st and 4th? In Battersby's book, as at interwar Republican ans Silver Shirt rallies, Hitler was God's anointed defender. Much of the GOP platform shares space with National Socialist planks. Their books, especially Mein Kampf, preach racial colectivism, mystical altruism and the initiation of force as Jesus' sword. Viz. (https://bit.ly/3R0E2y8)

[AT]

You didn't mention the 14th Amendment. Or the Constitution. You just rambled aimlessly about nazis or whatever, as some kind of deflection to assert your love of abortion.

A practice, I might add, that is dedicated to exterminating the undesirables, particularly those of the black/brown community.

Don't know why you would want that. Guess I can't goosestep to your tune. Sorry.

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

Hank is incredibly senile and Misek is a straight up Holocaust denier, so I have to admit that my advice here would be to simply ignore any of the drivel they manage to plonk down on a keyboard. You do you, but I just felt I should warn you that you're interacting with known retards and fuckstains.

[AT]

I don't know - it might be good practice for dealing with both Democrat and Republican politicians, no?

[Libertariantranslator]

Observe how the 14th Amendment, from "All persons born" down to "of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" is blanked out by God's Own Prohibitionists. If the Bill of Rights or other Amendment conflict with a fanatical girl-bullier's desire to initiate force against a female U.S. citizen because the Army of God asserts she is "a person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," then the Constitution is that fanatic's enemy. Quod erat demonstratum.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

I would support a law that assisting anyone in moving TO Alabama should be a criminal conspiracy.

[Libertariantranslator]

Alabama detention camps might be THE way to deter invasive border-crossing from non-Mohammedan satrapies. Foreign papers currently bristle bristle expensive regrets and dashed hopes of migrants who expected liberalismo y liberdad and got narcs, informers, animus furandi with guns, riots and goodthinkful swastika Parteitags.

[Libertariantranslator]

Already in Ohio cops can freely shoot pregnant women and in Texas any redneck with a gun can drag females into a police station and claim immunity AND a bounty. In Wikipedia "Your Job in Germany" is an online Army Video for troops occupying Germany. It warned about Hitler Youth brainwashed since birth by Christian National Socialism. Most under 60 were fed 36 years of Republican agitprop under Nixon, Reagan, Bush2 and Orange Hitler: Those are today's clinic-shooters, girl-bulliers and January 6 Reichstag attackers!

[AT]

Tell me more about these bounties. That sounds lucrative.

[Libertariantranslator]

Grand Goblin Greg is the Abbott girl-bulliers need to consult. And masks are part of the dress code at the Governor's fiery Klavern. Illegal aliens from the girl-bullying caudillo states of Honduras, El Salvador and República Dominicana just might enter the braceros program to hunt down fugitive females. All this is thanks to Bush & Son and Donald Juan Trump packing the court with Palito, Long Dong, Mutterkreus Mom and Gorbasuch. "The common good before the individual good," eh Volksgenosse?

[AT]

Right, but the bounties. How do I get the money?

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

I truly hope I'll have enough sense remaining to kill myself with some dignity before I get to Hank levels of dementia.

[fafalone]

Wonder where they got that idea?

If the US federal government thinks it can apply it's own laws planet-wide by prosecuting it's citizens for acts that are legal where they took place, is it any surprise states think they can do the same? Do the people who oppose this also oppose that?

[Libertariantranslator]

Observe that 9 out of 10 girl-bulliers are impotent males biologically immune from perinatal death. Like politicians in leather chairs ordering youths impressed into foreign trenches, they beg men with guns to help coerce and enslave the fair sex, though death was very common in 1787. Because many women are killed by reproduction, fake manumission at the brink of death is added as an appeasing afterthought. Ask yourself how many enslavers who BELIEVE Trump won the popular and electoral vote, that the Shroud of Turin is stamped by Jesus, that dead Lazarus lived again, will BELIEVE the victim was actually dying and forbear to arrest or kill the physician or midwife? Simple facts: (https://bit.ly/3HqbdFJ)

[Crackers Boy]

Does anyone else here think that Libertariantranslator is just the output from somebody's ChatGPT? It's just random shit thrown together and makes very little sense. Whoever's behind Libertariantranslator may have novel ideas but his/her/its/zirs thoughts aren't being well expressed.

CB

[Libertariantranslator]

Better idea: Now that the von Mises NSDAP Tea Party has invaded the pro-choice LP, support NARAL.org