Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

There is a new study in the NE Journal of Medicine demonstrating that the Covid vaccines were a giant experiment on the world's population, and why vaccine mandates couldn't be justified based on mere speculation of their efficacy. In fact it looks like being vaccinated facilitated the spread of the disease because the vaccinated are contagious much longer than the unvaccinated:

"A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has demonstrated that people who are triple-vaccinated (boosted) against COVID recover significantly more slowly from COVID infection and remain contagious for longer than people who are not vaccinated at all.

The study did not deal with the severity of illness with or without a vaccine."

"At five days post-infection, less than 25 percent of unvaccinated people were still contagious, whereas around 70 percent of boosted people were still carrying viable virus particles. For those partially vaccinated, around 50 percent were still contagious at this point."

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/356245

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Now there's some science that won't get trusted.

[Randal]

Sure, what's not to trust? Kazinski's speculation that it "facilitated the spread of the disease" is fully retarded, of course, but that's not part of the science so who cares.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think it's unreasonable to infer that if someone is contagious longer, they could facilitate the spread of the disease more so than someone who isn't contagious?

[Randal]

No, but that wasn't his inference, so... Strawmen with Red Herring Sauce being the special of the day, I guess.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In fact it looks like being vaccinated facilitated the spread of the disease because the vaccinated are contagious much longer than the unvaccinated

Why are you people so f'n stupid?

[Randal]

Stupid? Who's the one who can't tell an inference from a fact?

The part you bolded is a fact from the study (assuming the study is accurate, which I have no reason to believe it's not).

The inference is the other part of the sentence: "being vaccinated facilitated the spread of the disease." You have to be beyond retarded, like, willfully suppressing your own logic cortex to draw that conclusion from the results of the study.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think it's unreasonable to infer that if someone is contagious longer, they could facilitate the spread of the disease more so than someone who isn't contagious?

You're the dumbest mf'er on this board. lmao

[Randal]

Apparently you missed out on critical thinking in school. It explains a lot.

You can infer (not entirely, but reasonably) that a person who is contagious longer than another person "facilitates the spread of the disease."

But that's comparing a vaccinated person with covid to an unvaccinated person with covid.

To make the inference that the vaccine facilitates the spread of the disease, you have to compare a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person. You don't get to assume that they both have covid.

Do you need it explained in smaller words?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If the vaccine caused you to be contagious longer, it also caused you to spread the disease during the additional duration you were contagious. Spreading the disease for a more extended period facilitates the spread of the disease.

Do not understand how time works or what contagious means?

[Michael P]

How effective are the vaccines at preventing infection nowadays?

That's the missing data, which BCD seems to understand and you don't. Your point is relevant if the vaccine reduces the likelihood of infection by more than it increases the likelihood of transmission-if-infected.

But according to the US CDC, vaccines are only about 50% effective against infection now, whereas much bigger differences are reported (by the linked article) in how long someone is infectious. And according to the Israeli Health Ministry chart in the linked article, vaccines have negative effectiveness among people 60+.

[Randal]

That's the missing data, which BCD seems to understand and you don't.

I think you got this backwards. Without the data, you can't draw the inference, naturally.

[Brett Bellmore]

I see several real issues here.

1. The reason it is suggested that it might increase spread is that the people who got Covid and weren't vaccinated typically were no longer contagious by the end of the recommended quarantine period, while the ones who were vaccinated and got it anyway often WERE still contagious by the time they were let out of quarantine. That's actually a sensible point, they may have made a big mistake reducing the recommended quarantine period without doing this sort of study FIRST. Not the only big mistake they've made, mind: Covid has not put the medical authorities in a good light.

2. But, don't place much reliance on this study because it had a pathetically small sample size, and consequently low statistical significance.

3. They continue the mind bogglingly stupid practice of dividing subjects into "vaccinated" and "unvaccinated", (And in this case, "boosted", too.) while completely ignoring whether the subjects had previously had Covid. As though natural immunity wasn't a thing, and didn't have any influence on the course of future infections.

It's beyond me what motivates this conspicuous, relentless determination to ignore the elephant in the room.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Brett, the elephant in the room is the motivations.
The Federals have masses to control and societies to reset.
Big Pharma has the billions upon billions on ill-gotten profits to bank.

When you look at things through that lense, everything makes perfect sense.

[Randal]

Those all seem like rational critiques.

Do you have a link to the study? That would go a long way towards bringing some actual data to this conversation. I didn't see one in the above linked article.

[Randal]

The Federals have masses to control and societies to reset.

When you look at things through that lense, everything makes perfect sense.

This blog has never seen a more astute observation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Randal, here you go. Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection

The real meat is in figures 1D and E. Which did NOT provide statistically significant results, on account of the study's sample size being pathetically small, only 66 total participants. At most this study is a bit suggestive.

[Don Nico]

Michael,
The latest data are that the vaccines AND previous infection are less than 30% effective in preventing new infections with BA.4 or BA.5

[DaivdBehar]

The unauthorized experimentation is being carried out on children and on babies.

https://www.commonsense.news/p/us-public-health-agencies-arent-following

[Kazinski]

Well let's take a critical example like the military to see how it could facilitate the spread of disease.

You got 2 soldiers, one vaxxed the other non-vaxxed, both get covid. Both are isolated 5 days per CDC recommendations.

According to this study when the two soldiers are returned to their unit the vaccinated soldier is more than twice as likely to still be infectious and put his unit at risk.

[Randal]

We already went over this. You don't get to make up scenarios and draw conclusions from them. Or if we do, then here's my scenario:

You got 2 soldiers, one vaxxed the other non-vaxxed. The non-vaxxed one gets covid and spreads it around their unit before being diagnosed and quarantined. The vaxxed soldier doesn't get covid at all.

According to this study, the non-vaxxed soldier is an asshole.

[Don Nico]

Did you READ the study carefully?
By the way "science" is not religion.

[Brett Bellmore]

I read it. It's beyond me how anybody can draw any firm conclusions from a study with this few participants. At most it suggests you might want to do it over with about 10-100 times the sample size, so that you could actually arrive at some conclusions.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
Can you send me a link to the actual source.
Thank you

[Brett Bellmore]

It's just above, but here you go.

[Randal]

This is known as The Parable of the Rocky Beach.

Once there were two nice, sandy beaches called Vaccinated Beach and Unvaccinated Beach. But they were beset with sharp rocks, from small gravel-size stones to huge boulders. What a travesty!

Then one day, Vaccinated Beach invested in technology to clear away the rocks. They were able to get rid of all the rocks except for the hugest boulders. But those were mostly avoidable. Hooray, people's feet were healthy again!

But this made the people of Unvaccinated Beach bitter and whiney, so they did a scientific study proving that the rocks on Vaccinated Beach we're, on average, much larger and more annoying than the ones on Unvaccinated Beach. The professional whiners on Unvaccinated News were overjoyed, exclaiming "See! All that anti-rock technology just made things worse over at Vaccinated Beach! All their rocks are YUGE!" And so, the people on Unvaccinated Beach felt much better about themselves and their bloody-ass feet.

[Illocust]

More like vaccinated Beach was able to replace the rocks with 10% of their mass in glass. Your still worse off walking on vaccinated beach.

[Sarcastr0]

The study above does not establish anything like that analogy.

[Brett Bellmore]

It doesn't establish anything, period. The sample size was too small to arrive at statistical significance about, essentially, ANYTHING.

[shawn_dude]

Not often I agree with Brett... but a sample size of 66 is problematic.

[Kazinski]

I agree the study is not definitive about anything. We've seen a lot of competing studies over the course of Covid.

My major point is that they certainly didn't have enough information about the vaccines, their efficacy, their side effects, and how long they are effective to mandate vaccines and fire hundreds of thousands of workers.

Or for Canada going to the mattresses with their trucking industry either.

[Don Nico]

Kazinski,
Your claim is irrelevant.
The vaccines and tested for very different variants than any now in widespread circulation. Moreover, those variants were at least 5 to 10 x more pathogenic than the present omicron variants in circulation.
The number of tests of the first vaccines were certainly extensive enough to have very high confidence in their efficacy and eventually in the time decay of effectiveness.
The story is exceedingly different to the case of omicron variants. Even with the very small number of patients studied, the study's conclusions are highly suggestive that the CDC has been remiss and maybe even deliberately negligent in its present recommendation.
BUT that is not what you are claiming.

[Kazinski]

Don you are claiming their guidance and mandates were reasonable based on what they knew then. I won't dispute the guidance was reasonable a year ago.

What I am claiming the government did not have enough data to institute vaccine mandates via OSHA, federal contractors or the military.

Its obviously wrong now, so its clear to me at least they shouldn't have been so certain in the fall of 2021 to insist more than hundred million people be vaccinated or be fired.

Just last week the Pentagon stripped pay and benefits from 57,000 National Guardsmen. When it is completely unknown at this point in time whether the vaccine is a net plus or minus.

[Ben_]

Unvaccinated people aren’t making demands. That’s the main difference.

[Randal]

Sure they are. They're demanding to go around unvaccinated.

[shawn_dude]

They're demanding to go around unvaccinated, including where they might infect people with underlying conditions and those that are unable to get the vaccine for medical reasons. They are demanding access to private property where the owners wish to refuse entry to the unvaccinated. They are demanding the right to go to work even where their employer doesn't want the risk of spreading the disease to other employees or customers. They are demanding an exemption from any responsibility for their own choices and the consequences of their actions.

[Don Nico]

"They are demanding an exemption from any responsibility for their own choices and the consequences of their actions."
You are as bad as Kazinski at making a religious claim regarding this study. Your claim with respect to omicron is without any evidence.

[Kazinski]

Well I'm not actually making any claim about this particular study.

My actual point is the government claimed they knew that being vaccinated would lower the risk of getting and spreading covid. OSHA promulgated a nationwide vaccine mandate on the rationale that it would reduce the spread of covid.

It turns out that they knew no such thing.

[Don Nico]

Wrong again, Kazinski.
CDC actually did KNOW via massive data that the mRNA vaccines reduced the spread of the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants.
"I'm not actually making any claim about this particular study"
Of course you made a bogus claim:
"In fact it looks like being vaccinated facilitated the spread of the disease because the vaccinated are contagious much longer than the unvaccinated"
That letter to the NEJM made no such claim. Be honest.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My body my choice, Randal. Keep your nose out of my private medical decisions. The government doesn’t belong in my lymph nodes.

[Ben_]

No they aren’t. No need to demand anything of anyone in order to go someplace.

[Randal]

Yeah they are. Almost anywhere you go requires the permission of the owner.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Kazinski leads with a reference to a legitimate, mainstream publication but the quotations are linked directly to a wingnut outfit that lies.

Virus-flouting, antisocial right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . . and are the white, male, disaffected Volokh Conspiracy's target audience.

Will the UCLA medical school join UCLA's law school in apologizing for this stuff?

[Stephen Lathrop]

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has demonstrated that people who are triple-vaccinated (boosted) against COVID recover significantly more slowly from COVID infection and remain contagious for longer than people who are not vaccinated at all.

Could be that the fully vaccinated differ in some medically important respect from the unvaccinated. They might, for instance, be older, immune suppressed, diabetic, or what have you. Might that account for prolonged recovery times? If so, where does that leave inference that the vaccine somehow causes more contagion?

[Kazinski]

"If so".

Your "if so" is doing a lot of work there.

Say you're a doctor and you're designing a study that you are going to try to publish in a prestigious journal, and then you go and pick a vaccinated cohort that's on deaths door and then compare them to an unvaccinated cohort of very healthy teenagers?

No, not even an amateur like you is going to make a mistake like that, cause it wouldn't even pass peer review, let alone get published.

[Randal]

Did nobody read my brilliant beach parable? Or did it just go over everyone's head?

It's not at all surprising to me that if a vaccinated person does get covid, it takes longer to purge. A lot of the little piddly infections that an unvaccinated person might get are just not going to break through a vaccinated person's defenses. To break through, the exposure is going to have to be more significant and persistent on average. That means vaccinated people will get infected less often, but when they do, it's a more intransigent infection. (That doesn't necessarily mean more serious symptoms, because the vaccine mitigates those too, but it could mean a more entrenched virus.)

I know that's not a scientific account. But it's a way to think about some of the different variables involved.

The moral is, you can't draw casual conclusions from scientific studies that the study itself doesn't draw, because you're almost definitely missing something. Write your own paper and get it peer-reviewed, then we'll talk.

In other words, Kazinski, you should take your own advice.

[Don Nico]

SL,
As this study (more like a quick look at data) did not control for those factors, your speculation is without foundation.
I will give you my sample of 1 study: I had the BionTech vaccines, plus two boosters.
I took Paxlovid, and I tested positive for 3 weeks.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Without foundation? Had the study been done in the U.S., the vaccinated cohort would have to have been picked on some non-random basis to avoid the kind of skew I mentioned. I think it is true in every state that the more-vulnerable population (older, with co-morbid factors) got vaccinated at notably higher rates than the others. Seems just as true in red states as in blue states. Why wouldn't they? So if the study did use a non-random vaccinated cohort to exclude that bias, shouldn't that be explicitly mentioned in the report? If that is not reported, why are we not entitled to suppose the vaccinated cohort reflects the pattern of vaccination disclosed by nationwide statistics?

[swood1000]

There is a new study in the NE Journal of Medicine demonstrating that the Covid vaccines were a giant experiment on the world's population, and why vaccine mandates couldn't be justified based on mere speculation of their efficacy.

OK, I read this NEJM article but couldn’t find where the authors said or implied that the Covid vaccines were a “giant experiment on the world's population,” or why they “couldn't be justified based on mere speculation of their efficacy.” Is this the study you were referring to? Are you saying that these conclusions must follow if the vaccinated are contagious much longer than the unvaccinated?

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports that the Justice Department has asked the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol for evidence it has accumulated about the scheme by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies to put forward false slates of pro-Trump electors in battleground states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/politics/jan-6-committee-evidence-justice-department.html Here's hoping that the committee cooperates with DOJ to a greater extent than it has to this point.

[Bob from Ohio]

The walls are closing in!

[not guilty]

Indeed, Bob. The multi-state bogus elector scheme is perhaps the simplest and most straightforward aspect of the Team Trump criminality to investigate and prosecute. Culpability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States or to commit an offense) and 1001(a)(3) (making false writing or document to federal officials) is easy for a jury to understand. Given that the objective of the scheme was corrupt interference with the electoral count in Congress, § 1512(c)(2) and (k) come into play. The tentacles of the fraudulent plan reach the highest levels of Trumpworld.

[Bob from Ohio]

We shall see. 6 years of investigations and and no charges anywhere yet. Maybe a day will come.

[shawn_dude]

Impeachment, which Trump faced twice, is a "charge."

[Kazinski]

Yep, and he was determined to be innocent.

[Frank Drackman]

actually "Not Guilty", there's a difference. (Although he's innocent also)
Ted Kennedy was "Not Guilty" of abandoning a beautiful young woman to Asphyxiate (Not Drowned, there's a difference) but definitely not "Innocent"

[Bob from Ohio]

Impeachment is a political proceeding. Former defense attorney [who weirdly lusts for prosecutions] was talking [once again] about crimes.

[ducksalad]

To be fair, without prosecutions there would be no defense attorneys.

[John F. Carr]

I'm confident most of the fake electors committed crimes and they didn't spontaneously come up with the idea. So who did? The committee has not released anything that would have me vote to convict Trump's inner circle on the electoral college front. The plan was to ignore some legitimate Biden electors and win by a vote of Congress after Biden failed to gain a majority. There was talk of having state legislatures appoint different electors, but that never happened. The committee is hinting there is more incriminating evidence to come. So let's see it.

[De Oppresso Liber]

You don't think the president encouraging a mob he knew to be armed and chanting death to Mike Pence to march on the capitol was wrong or criminal? Ok then.

[bernard11]

I'm confident most of the fake electors committed crimes and they didn't spontaneously come up with the idea. So who did?

I'm guessing Eastman.

[not guilty]

Eastman's memoranda indicate that the submission of the bogus electoral slates were central to his plan to have Mike Pence unilaterally reject valid electoral slates. Rudy Giuliani appears to have been heavily involved. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/28/rudy-giuliani-legal-problems-false-electors-scheme

[not guilty]

Several Republicans in Georgia have reportedly received target letters arising out of the Fulton County special grand jury investigation in regard to the bogus electors scheme. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/exclusive-fulton-county-da-sends-target-letters-to-trump-allies-in-georgia-investigation/ar-AAZC46Z?li=BBnb7Kz Perhaps they will implicate the architects of the plan.

[Ben_]

It will be cool when this stuff damages Trump enough to clear the way for DeSantis in 2024. DeSantis will have an easier time winning in the general election and won’t be term limited in 2028.

[shawn_dude]

Or in 2032, I bet.

[Randal]

It's impossible to imagine Trump handing the torch to DeSantis. And if he doesn't, it's hard to see DeSantis winning in the general. Trump would most likely run as an independent, as he threatened in 2016.

DeSantis can't win without essentially all of Trump's voters. How does he get them if Trump won't give them up? Promise Trump some ridiculous honor like King of Florida?

Ah I know! He promises Trump a pardon. Now I see how this can work.

[Longtobefree]

NO!!
NO!!
A thousand times NO!!
We are going to keep Ron here to protect Florida from the feds, no matter who thinks they are in charge.
Until we get to vote yes or no on every level of bureaucrat, we want a nice strong governor.

[Kazinski]

An interesting leak of documents from the DOJ and FBI may put the proud boys conspiracy trial at risk.

The documents were leaked to Gatewaypundit who I'll admit lives in the feverswamps, but documents are documents and can be verified, so trashing the source won't invalidate what's in the documents.

According to the memo's the FBI informant who was embedded in the Proud Boys says they had no plan to invade the capitol and their sole focus was to provide security if any of the MAGA demonstrators we're attacked by Antifa or other violent counter protesters.

Now it may be the FBI has other evidence to support the charges that contradicts their agents reports, but if it turns out the government was violating it's Brady obligations then it could put the whole trial in jeopardy.

That's what caused the charges in the Bundy trial to be dismissed with prejudice, when it turns out the government had been concealing evidence and lying about it.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

A unique and really good live version of Visions of Johanna by Dylan. Enjoy:
https://youtu.be/i8z7KzB16Ik

[Kleppe]

The news stories reporting the rape of the 10 year old in Ohio (apparently the child was actually 9 at the time of the crime) uniformly fail to mention the alleged perpetrator is an illegal immigrant. The stories don't even try to paper over it with the usual left-wing euphemisms, e.g., "undocumented", "migrant", etc. -- they just straight up leave this fact (and all of its policy implications) out entirely. Instead, the lies "Columbus man" and "Ohio man" are used, purportedly to smear Midwesterners.

[Randal]

It was mentioned in the (one) article I read, so you're 100% wrong there. And also apparently you know it too, so it's not being suppressed at all it seems, from the evidence available.

This made me laugh out loud though!

Instead, the lies "Columbus man" and "Ohio man" are used, purportedly to smear Midwesterners.

You purportedly aren't aware of the word "apparently." Also, do you think male, rapey immigrants aren't men, or what exactly is going on in your mind (if anything)?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How is he supposed to know what a man is, he isn't a biologist!

[Randal]

Fair enough. What are we now anyway, cismen?

Maybe it's time to invert the term cissy to mean a real man, a man's man (but not in a gay way), whence men were real men etc.

The Incredible Hulk turns into a cissy whenever he gets angry.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I don't know what some of the words mean.

I am not a progressive, nor a biologist, so I do not speak nuspeak.

[OtisAH]

Makes sense. You barely handle English.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There is a Diverse on the SCOTUS who doesn’t know what a woman is, when she is one yet you throw stones at me because I don’t know what a “cisman” is?

[Frank Drackman]

is that a Sissy-boy who's grown up?

[Longtobefree]

It is very simple.
Men are men.
Women are women.
The earth is NOT flat.
Science.

[Mr. Bumble]

Got a link to that story? Not something I've seen and the Ohio AG says there are no investigative reports that back up the story itself.

[Randal]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/columbus-police-arrest-gerson-fuentes-for-rape-of-ohio-10-year-old-who-traveled-to-indiana-for-abortion?ref=home

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks, also just found one on the Daily Mail site.
So, as to my post, like Emily Littela: Never mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the more interesting thing is the indications are that the doctor violated reporting requirements, and that they've been rushing everything through since she blabbed to paper over it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Doctors lie?

[bernard11]

No Brett.

The more interesting thing is how the right pushed the idea that the story was made up, and now is trying, like you to find anything to talk about other than owning up to their own lies.

"Indications are." Show some damn integrity. Stop repeating BS to deflect from the facts.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason it was thought that the story was made up, was because reporting requirements meant that if it really happened, her rape would have to have been reported to the police, and have resulted in a big freaking deal. National manhunt, that sort of thing. The state AG came right out and said they had no record of such a case, and that he'd absolutely have heard of it.

Instead it appears the doctor illegally failed to report the rape, and arranged for the abortion to happen out of state even though it was perfectly legal for it to have happened in state. Even now perfectly legal, and the abortion took place before Dobbs. This stinks of a cover-up.

They're investigating the doctor now over the apparent criminal violation of reporting requirements.

[Thrax2]

Nope. Ohio law has been heartbeat and no rape exception for two years.

https://www.citybeat.com/news/gov-mike-dewine-no-comment-on-ohio-abortion-ban-that-forced-underage-rape-victim-to-travel-to-indiana-for-abortion-13459448

I can’t see how the doctor had reporting requirements for an abortion she didn’t perform.

[Krayt]

Which didn't apply before the recent court decision. Arguments about retroactive punishment for something "illegal all along" are something else.

[Thrax2]

She got the abortion on June 30, after Dobbs came down.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/13/us/ohio-10-year-old-girl-columbus-man-charged-indiana-abortion/index.html

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not what I had read, but it's a heartbeat with life and health of the mother exceptions, And if you don't think a 10 year old carrying a pregnancy full term isn't a serious health risk, I don't know what you'd think was.

[David Nieporent]

That's not what I had read,

Then maybe you should consider that Right Wing Kooks Weekly is not a reliable source.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“ Division (A) of this section does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure that, in the physician's reasonable medical judgment, is designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” RC 2919.195(A)

“Serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” means any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. A medically diagnosed condition that constitutes a “serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” includes pre-eclampsia, inevitable abortion, and premature rupture of the membranes, may include, but is not limited to, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, and does not include a condition related to the woman’s mental health.” RC 2919.16(K)

Being ten and in a high risk category of people is not a medical diagnosis clearly covered by this statute. It also is unclear when exactly this determination needs to be made.

And perhaps more importantly: Brett-Law and Brett-Prosecutorial Discretion doesn’t carry the day in Ohio. It’s up to local prosecutors to decide if this was a serious risk or not. The doctor isn’t going to risk a felony on what they’d like it to mean or on what Brett Bellmore wants it to mean.

[Bob from Ohio]

"doctor had reporting requirements for an abortion she didn’t perform"

It's the child abuse/rape reporting requirement he's talking about. Doctors [and lawyers most places] are "mandatory reporters" when they have information about child abuse..

According to the Indiana doctor, an Ohio doctor contacted her for help. Both doctors were required by their state laws to report the rape to law enforcement.

[Thrax2]

The Ohio doctor did. The Indiana doctor may have--it's unclear. Though there was hardly much point in reporting an Ohio rape to Indiana authorities when it had already been reported to Ohio authorities.

[Thrax2]

And the Indiana doctor did too, contrary to Brett’s claims:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/health/2022/07/14/ohio-abortion-10-year-old-indiana-todd-rokita-dr-caitlin-bernard/65373626007/

If Brett told me the Sun rose in the east today, I’d check.

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, Brett's problem is not that he's a liar, but that he believes people who lie to him and tell him what he wants to hear.

[not guilty]

Brett also has a problem in that he is impervious to correction when actual, contrary facts are disclosed to him. That bespeaks intellectual dishonesty.

[Thrax2]

And seeing as the rape clearly *was* reported to the police, as there's been an arrest, I don't know why you're riding this train anyway.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Because they’ve been quickly confronted with the scenario everyone opposed to Dobbs/state bans said would happen and have to figure out a way to focus on anything besides the consequences of a decision they embraced.

[bernard11]

He's riding the train because he can't admit that this really happened, or that people like Jordan and the WSJ and other scumbags lied about it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And seeing as the rape clearly *was* reported to the police, as there's been an arrest

Pop quiz: When did the arrest occur relative to the allegation being questioned?

[Thrax2]

When did the arrest occur relative to the allegation being questioned?

You're saying the guy was only arrested because right-wing media questioned the story? As in, the authorities were happy to have him on the streets, but for the heroic efforts of Tucker Carlson? Boy, you have a low opinion of the Columbus police.

Anyway, my point was that the rape was in fact reported to police, and it turns out that happened on June 22, long before any of this went public, so if you actually meant that it wasn't reported until the RWM did what it does so very badly, nope.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/one-source-story-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You're saying the guy was only arrested because right-wing media questioned the story? As in, the authorities were happy to have him on the streets, but for the heroic efforts of Tucker Carlson?

No, you mouth-breathing window-licker...I'm not saying that at all. Given that my response was to...

"And seeing as the rape clearly *was* reported to the police, as there's been an arrest"

...what I was saying should be pretty obvious even to a moron like you.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Absolutely disgusting. Is there any limit to how low you people will go?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Absolutely disgusting. Is there any limit to how low you people will go?

Uh...what the hell are you babbling about?

[LawTalkingGuy]

“ even though it was perfectly legal for it to have happened in state. Even now perfectly legal, and the abortion took place before Dobbs. ”

Stop. Saying. This. It’s not clear it’s perfectly legal at all. And a straightforward reading of the statute indicates it’s not.

[Randal]

Wow, you couldn't have proven bernard's point better than with this pack of lies, Brett!

[David Nieporent]

No, Brett. Wrong as always.

According to even the right wing PJ Media — which was pushing the "hoax" story before—it was reported to the police before the story even became news:

According to the police report (obtained by Megan), a police report was generated on June 22

https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2022/07/13/why-pj-medias-reporting-on-the-10-year-old-rape-victim-matters-n1612740

even though it was perfectly legal for it to have happened in state.

No. It might have been legal, but it also might not have. A doctor would be gambling on how a prosecutor would react. Like, the doctor could've said it was medically necessary, and — if the prosecutor were like you — the prosecutor would say, "Naw, everyone who says that is a liar. It wasn't, and I'm indicting this doctor."

and the abortion took place before Dobbs.

Also a lie. The abortion took place on June 30. Dobbs was handed down on June 24.

Here's a good heuristic to use for you to stop embarrassing yourself in the future: when you read a story, first think to yourself, "What is the explanation for these facts if the people who disagree with me are all bad faith liars?" And then realize that only a crazy person thinks this way, and assume that the opposite is true.

[not guilty]

To whom would the doctor in Indiana be obliged to make a report of abuse? Authorities in Indiana would have no jurisdiction of crimes against the child occurring in Franklin County, Ohio.

[Kazinski]

The law is a reporting requirement based on the age of the patient and where the doctor is, it's up to authorities to investigate and determine jurisdiction.

Just like hospitals are required to report gunshot wounds, there is no exception for bank robbers that make it over state lines.

[not guilty]

The Indianapolis Star reports having obtained documentation evincing the doctor's reports to Indiana officials. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/health/2022/07/14/ohio-abortion-10-year-old-indiana-todd-rokita-dr-caitlin-bernard/65373626007/ Not that facts matter to her critics.

Those who would require a raped ten year old to carry her pregnancy to term are monsters.

[bernard11]

Well, it turns out that she didn't violate reporting requirements.

What turns out is that the IN AG is a lying scumbag - big surprise - but of course you're frothing to repeat his crap.

[not guilty]

"Instead, the lies 'Columbus man' and 'Ohio man' are used, purportedly to smear Midwesterners."

How are those lies? Is Mr. Fuentes not a resident of Columbus, Ohio? Is he not a man?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you could say that, as an illegal immigrant, he IS a "man", but he's more of a "Guatemalan man" than an "Ohio man".

[TwelveInchPianist]

I suppose they could just refer to him as a breakfast taco.

[Randal]

What's so wrong about a taco at breakfast??

[Bob from Ohio]

"First lady Jill Biden is apologizing after saying Latinos are as "unique" as "breakfast tacos" at an event in San Antonio, Texas, her spokesperson Michael LaRosa said."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Strategist: We really should stop calling Latinos "Latinx", they don't like it.
Jill Biden: Hold my beer!

[Randal]

Again, what's so wrong about a taco at breakfast?

A gift for you. Enjoy!

https://youtu.be/bQKDlNTEl6w

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you think it was really a roundabout attempt by Jill Biden to hook up with Ben Affleck? Possible.

[Frank Drackman]

I like Tacos!

[Sarcastr0]

One might assume you care more about what groups are mentioned and how than the actual story.

[bernard11]

Nice of you to overlook the main point here, which is that the RW media, WSJ, for example, politicians - Hey, Jim "see no evil" Jordan, why did you delete that tweet? - and some commenters here were all over the "It's fake news" talking point.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ultimately she got an abortion. Fairly easily. I’m not sure why this story is so important. The horror of the story isn’t that she had to drive a bit to get it done, it’s that some piece of shit raped a nine year old a couple of times.

[OtisAH]

Your uncertainty as to why the story of a raped and impregnated 10 year old girl having to leave her state to get an abortion is important combined with your “la-dee-da” description of her traumatic ordeal might not mean you’re a monster, but you’re definitely a horrible person.

And yes, she had to leave. Folks relying on the bit where abortions are allowed in OH to protect the life of the mother put more faith in being able to make that case to an OH prosecutor than OH doctors are likely willing to.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Fuck off Otis. She got her problem taken care of. Acknowledging a simple fact doesn’t make me a monster or a terrible person.

But the way you respond to everyone here demonstrates that you’re a jackass.

[Randal]

I don't understand this attitude, beavis the horrible lumberjack. It's fine to ban abortion for raped 10 year olds in some states because they can just go to other states? Then what's the point of the ban? Was 50 years of whining about Roe purely about fixing a legal error, without any expectation or even desire for fewer actual abortions? It makes no sense.

[OtisAH]

Horrible people are the worst judges of their own horribleness.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You should know.

Y’all are assuming a political attitude on my part. Where did I say it was fine to bar 10 yo rape victim from getting an abortion? You can’t point out where I said that because I didn’t.

So don’t give me attitude for something I didn’t say and expect no attitude in return.

[Randal]

You're certainly downplaying it a lot for something you think isn't fine:

The horror of the story isn’t that she had to drive a bit to get it done

So, which is it? Fine to ban 10 year old rape abortions, or should they be allowed?

[De Oppresso Liber]

No, you're truly an awful, despicable human. Get better.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem isn't it being "important", the problem is that she didn't actually have to leave her state to get an abortion!

You do understand the abortion took place before Dobbs, and was legal under OH under post Dobbs law, right?

And your concern that a prosecutor might decide to illegitimately file charges in a case like THIS is crazy. Setting aside that the abortion was legal under post-Dobbs law, (I could see some concern if it hadn't been, as they wouldn't know when Dobbs would issue.) why do you suppose the prosecutor would be wanting to create a perfect test case for the pro-choice side?

This was precisely the very last case where an abortionist would have to worry about being prosecuted.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Brett, once again you speak of things you do not know. This abortion was not clearly legal under Ohio law. It’s not clearly
covered by anything in the statute. Possibly committing a felony and trusting magnanimous prosecutors not to charge you is an absolutely stupid thing to do when you can refer them for a legal abortion somewhere else.

[bernard11]

How was it legal - legal enough that a scum-sucking RW prosecutor wouldn't seize the chance to bring a case against the doctor who did it?

[Thrax2]

You do understand the abortion took place before Dobbs, and was legal under OH under post Dobbs law, right?

You do understand that everything you're saying is wrong, right?

The abortion took place on June 30. Dobbs was decided on June 24.

Ohio law has no rape exception after six weeks. She was six weeks and three days along.

Your blithe assurance that the doctor wouldn't be prosecuted for committing this illegal act is very touching. I assume you'll be offering free legal representation to doctors charged in these circumstances.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The best they can come up with is that a prosecutor surely wouldn’t prosecute or that a court or jury would surely believe the life/substantial bodily impairment function covers the situation.

Both of which are terrible legal advice.

[David Nieporent]

Ohio law has no rape exception after six weeks. She was six weeks and three days along.

I'm skeptical that a doctor can date a pregnancy that precisely, but this is not correct anyway; there is no six week ban in Ohio. There's a heartbeat law. Heartbeat laws kick in at about six weeks, but there's no six week cutoff.

[Illocust]

I believe they normally kick in around 12 weeks. 6 weeks is rare, but sounds scarier.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Given the rape, the date of the intercourse is probably accurately known in this case, right?

[David Nieporent]

Not necessarily. If it were a stranger rape, or even a date rape, sure. But this seems to have been a family friend — well, "friend" — so not necessarily. See this from CNN:

Fuentes confessed to police Tuesday he raped the young girl at least twice, Det. Jeffrey Huhn testified Wednesday at Fuentes' arraignment.

Fuentes "spoke with us and admitted to having vaginal intercourse with the victim on no less than two occasions" and then was arrested, Huhn said.

So,

1) If the two occasions were months apart, then that wouldn't matter; but if they were, say, a week apart, you wouldn't know which date was the right one.

2) That assumes that the girl reported it right away, which — given the circumstances — she may well not have. If she is too scared to say something, and then works up the courage to tell her mother, "So-and-so raped me a couple of weeks ago…" then we probably can't get an exact date (at least based on my experience with 10 year olds).

[OtisAH]

I addressed that particular deflection. And others have as well. Not that any of it will keep you from repeating your assertion from now until whenever.

[Thrax2]

This was precisely the very last case where an abortionist would have to worry about being prosecuted.

Tell that to the Indiana AG who is desperately seeking some way to prosecute the doctor.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/07/14/indiana-investigates-doctor-who-helped-10-year-old-rape-victim-obtain-abortion---even-though-its-still-legal-there/?sh=41af30cd6b7e

[Brett Bellmore]

But not for the abortion. For failing to report it and evidence of a rape.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Unfortunately for you, Brett, the AG said the quiet part out loud:

"This is a child, and there’s a strong public interest in understanding if someone under the age of 16 or under the age of 18 or really any woman is having abortion in our state,"

The fact is: there is NO public interest in whether a woman has an abortion or not.

[Voize of Reazon]

Whether there is a public interest or not, Indiana requires all abortions to be reported within 30 days to the department of health, or within 3 days if the patient is under 16 years of age.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Jesus fucking christ man. You've been proven wrong at every single thing you try to assert here. When do you finally accept that you are just flat out wrong?

The point of this whole thing is that a raped 10 year old could not obtain an abortion in one of your right to life states. This cruel law, written and supported by cruel, ignorant men meant that this little girl had to leave her home state, lest she become a criminal. All for being an innocent victim of a horrible crime.

Can't you see the forest for the trees? Stop trying every pedantic, incorrect excuse after the other. It's pathetic, and causing me to doubt the humanity of my fellow Americans.

[Thrax2]

Seeing as the Ohio doctor reported the crime that took place in Ohio to Ohio's authorities, going after the Indiana doctor for not filling out completely useless paperwork would just be thuggery, though that doesn't mean it won't happen.

[bernard11]

She did report it. Fuck off.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, your party is nuts; you need to check now before you post 'oh this crazy evil seeming thing would *never* happen'

[LawTalkingGuy]

The desperation to pretend what everyone said would happen isn’t happening or didn’t need to happen the way it did is really something. Particularly when the most extreme voices on the right also said they were okay with this happening!

To quote Ohio State Rep Jean Schmidt who wants an even more restrictive ban than the current one when asked about 13 year olds being forced to carry to term:

“ It is a shame that it happens but there is an opportunity for that woman, no matter how young or old she is, to make a determination about what she's going to do to help that life be a productive human being.”

No matter how old or how young.

[bernard11]

You do understand the abortion took place before Dobbs, and was legal under OH under post Dobbs law, right?

No, Brett. You can repeat that lie all you want, but all you're doing is making yourself look ever more foolish and dishonest.

[not guilty]

"You do understand the abortion took place before Dobbs, and was legal under OH under post Dobbs law, right?"

Brett once again has the facts wrong. The child's doctor in Ohio contacted the OB-GYN in Indianapolis on the Monday after the Dobbs ruling was issued on Friday. The child was six weeks and three days pregnant. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/health/2022/07/01/indiana-abortion-law-roe-v-wade-overturned-travel/7779936001/

[Reallynotbob]

You're right about the rape. You're wrong that having to "drive a bit to get it done" is no big deal. I'll demonstrate:

Imagine a law banning the purchase of handguns in Tennessee, but permitting the ownership of any gun purchased in a neighboring state. If you just envisioned this blog engulfed in the holy fire of indignation, then you understand the problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's a big deal is the question of why the went to a neighboring state to get it done, when that in fact was NOT legally necessary. What's a big deal is why the state AG could find no sign of the mandatory report.

Your hypothetical fails to come to grips with that: The abortion was perfectly legal in state, so, what was the real motive for doing it out of state?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes it was! The statute on its face does not cover the situation. No rape exception. No age exception.

The doctor had no clue whether they would
commit a felony or not by performing the procedure. So they did the right thing and made sure to send the patient where it was legal.

Your allies drafted a shitty law that had negative consequences and you’re trying to pretend they don’t exist now. Just own up to it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The Attorney General of Ohio disagrees with your assessment. Not that facts matter when there’s political outrage to be vented.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That…doesn’t mean anything.

He doesn’t issue binding interpretations. He doesn’t control the discretion of local prosecutors or police. He now has a political incentive to say the law would have allowed this…when that’s not at all clear from the statute. Oh and he might not always be the AG. Someone else might decide differently. What’s the SoL on this thing?

More importantly he’s not the one deciding whether or not to risk a felony by performing the abortion. The doctor is. And the doctor and any competent counsel would correctly reason that the statute on its face simply does not squarely cover this situation. So to avoid the risk of a felony AND ensure care of the victim the right call is to refer her out of state.

Also he was falsely insisting the situation was made up, and refuses to apologize for being spectacularly wrong. So it’s not like he’s a bastion of honesty here.

[Thrax2]

The Ohio Attorney General cites no statute precluding prosecution of the doctor, and has no power to control what local DAs do anyway.

[Reallynotbob]

The AG of OH can say cameras whatever he wants to the cameras. But the law is the law as written, which means doctors aren't going to rely on the AG's unenforceable PR pronouncements. Let the AG offer a formal Opinion of the Attorney General... but I doubt that will occur....

[Randal]

Wow you really spread this BS thick across the whole thread, didn't you! That's a lot of shiteating apologies you're going to need to make once you educate yourself to the facts.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re an idiot. All I’ve done is state facts.

1. The girl got an abortion.
2. The Ohio AG says the law in Ohio would have allowed her to have received the service in Ohio.
3. Her alleged rapist has been charged. (Note: I give zero shits about his immigration status)

That’s it. The fact that the statement of uncontested facts causes such a vitriolic response in some of you people is a reflection of you projecting your political emotionalism into me. I haven’t taken a side. This thing is a somewhat contrived bid to do over something that has solved itself.

[Randal]

I was replying to Brett. He's quite a bit further off the rails than you are on this one.

[Harvey Mosley]

"Imagine a law banning the purchase of handguns in..." California, "...but permitting the ownership of any gun purchased in a neighboring state."

As a California gun owner: “Whatever you do,” cried Brer Rabbit, “Don’t throw me into the briar patch”.

In regards to the idea that a 10 year old should not be allowed to get an abortion any prosecutor in such a case should be summarily executed along with any judge that allows the prosecution to go forward and any arresting officers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Ultimately she got an abortion. Fairly easily. I’m not sure why this story is so important. "

This is part of the reason clingers can't compete at the modern American marketplace of ideas.

(But they're always a hit at the white, male, movement conservative, faux libertarian Volokh Conspiracy!)

[bernard11]

You want to rethink "fairly easily?"

[Thrax2]

Ultimately she got an abortion. Fairly easily. I’m not sure why this story is so important.

Oh, let me think. Maybe this foreshadows how bad things are going to get when, say, Indiana passes its own abortion ban. Maybe it's a preview of the horrible situation for a future girl who lives a thousand miles from a state where abortion is legal, or several thousand miles once a federal abortion ban passes. No, never mind, that would require the tiniest bit of empathy.

(Also, I hope your future medical procedures are moved three hours away so that you can enjoy "fairly easy" six-hour round trips.)

[bevis the lumberjack]

The Ohio AG says she didn’t have to go three hours away. But don’t let that slow your roll. Vent your politically twisted emotions!!! Let it all out!!!

[LawTalkingGuy]

And people explained to you why that doesn’t matter. For what it’s worth, the Office of Legislative Services which drafts these bills said the opposite (email in link)

https://chrisgeidner.substack.com/p/jeff-crossman-wants-to-protect-abortion

So again, it’s meaningless what the AG says about this because 1) he’s not authoritative on the question 2) can’t control the discretion of other prosecutors 3) his interpretation is at odds with the text and with the interpretation of legislative counsel. So again why does it matter what he says the law says?

[bernard11]

Add #4.

He's a lying POS.

[bernard11]

she had to drive a bit to get it done,

Actually, she didn't "have to drive a bit." I don't know how she got to Indiana, but if it was by car then somebody else drove her. Which wouldn't matter, I guess, except that in some states, like Texas, driving her would be a felony.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nice of you to overlook the main point here, which is that the RW media, WSJ, for example, politicians - Hey, Jim "see no evil" Jordan, why did you delete that tweet? - and some commenters here were all over the "It's fake news" talking point."

That's the main point? Given the sourcing, nobody should have claiming to know whether or not it was true or not.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That never seems to stop anyone.

[Voize of Reazon]

Articles I have seen did mention that Mr. Fuentes may be illegally in the country but that it was not yet established that he was.

I was surprised though at how Ohio AG Dave Yost was claiming on Monday on Fox News that the whole story was a fabrication, that there was "not a damn scintilla of evidence" that it was real, just one day before Fuentes was arrested and two days before his arraignment.

[wreckinball]

The news cycle was very disgusting.

First emphasis was on the Ohio abortion law which would allow for this abortion but was falsely claimed as not allowing it. THAT was the biggest issue. THAT was the agenda. False of course.

No one including the doctor, who should lose their license, seemed to mention how does a 10 year old get pregnant. Was she out clubbing and had an accident?

Of course she was raped. And by an illegal alien no less.Columbus LEO also has some answering to do. Likewise ICE.

Just disgusting

[Reallynotbob]

DOES the Ohio law permit the abortion performed on the 10yo girl?

My understanding from news reports is that the pregnancy was more than 6 weeks along, which means fetal heartbeat was potentially detectable. Assuming heartbeat was detected, I think Ohio S.B. 23 barred the procedure without exception for age of the girl, or the criminal act(s) that led to pregnancy. Can you point me to why you believe Ohio law permitted the abortion?

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s unclear but the best reading at the moment is no, it does not.

[OtisAH]

The part of the statute folks point to has to do with protecting the health of the mother. No one knows whether making that claim in this instance would be successful, including [large gasp] Brett. And anything you read from the OHAG or any OH prosecutor claiming they totally would’ve been cool in this matter isn’t worth the time it takes to read it. There’s also the open question of how much farther along she would be in the pregnancy while the legal questions got bandied about.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“First emphasis was on the Ohio abortion law which would allow for this abortion but was falsely claimed as not allowing it. THAT was the biggest issue. THAT was the agenda. False of course.“

It is just completely untrue that we know with certainty the law would allow this.

First, the statute has zero exception for rape. Second the statute has no exception for minors of any kind, let alone specific ages. Third the statute only says abortion may be performed when reasonably necessary to save the life of the mother or prevent “substantial bodily impairment.” The latter isn’t defined. This has never been tested in court, so the doctor actually has no idea when this procedure becomes “medically necessary.”

The assurances of the attorney general after the fact are useless. He won’t alway be AG and he doesn’t conduct prosecutions day to day.

So the claim that it was false to say Ohio law would prohibit this is itself false.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They’re hanging their hat on the idea that a doctor can perform an abortion when medically necessary to save her life or prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function . And that because the girl is so young the risk to life or the risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment is a given. But…it’s just not a given. It’s likely, but not a given. And even if it’s a given to the doctor…does the prosecutor agree? Who knows. Why would a doctor take the risk when they can send them to Indiana where they know it’s legal (but probably not for long).

Oh and the states definition of substantial risk doesn’t seem to cover it either:

“Serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” means any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. A medically diagnosed condition that constitutes a “serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” includes pre-eclampsia, inevitable abortion, and premature rupture of the membranes, may include, but is not limited to, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, and does not include a condition related to the woman’s mental health.“

Being 10 isn’t a medical diagnosis.

[Ridgeway]

I am not an MD, but I would think that it would be likely that a 10-YO girl, by virtue of her size and physical development, would have significant issues carrying a baby to term, particularly the likelihood of uterine rupture. In addition, vaginal birth would seem highly problematic again given the development of her cervix and birth canal. Any of these would fall within the death or "substantial and irreversible impairment" exceptions, especially as they are subject only to a reasonable good faith determination standard. I doubt the state could compel a caesarean delivery.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I doubt the state could compel a caesarean delivery."

States have already wrongly decided that they can force a women to carry a fertilized egg to birth. What really makes you think they'd draw the line at cutting her open to extract the precious baby inside?

The GOP has made it clear that a woman's job is to incubate children, whether she wants one or not.

[not guilty]

The individual rights of bodily integrity and personal autonomy are meaningless under the reasoning of Dobbs. Maternal health is identified therein as a state interest, but not as an individual interest.

The state can compel forcible sterilization under Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Is a compelled caesarean delivery now beyond the pale?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. You doubt. You going to risk a felony and suspension of your license on that construction?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Spoke too soon. The latter is defined and makes it much less likely to cover this situation

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" The news stories reporting the rape of the 10 year old in Ohio (apparently the child was actually 9 at the time of the crime) uniformly fail to mention the alleged perpetrator is an illegal immigrant. The stories don't even try to paper over it with the usual left-wing euphemisms, e.g., "undocumented", "migrant", etc. -- they just straight up leave this fact (and all of its policy implications) out entirely. Instead, the lies "Columbus man" and "Ohio man" are used, purportedly to smear Midwesterners. "

The New York Times report expressly indicates that Kleppe is mistaken (at best). I ascribe any discrepancy to Kleppe's bigotry, disaffectedness, and partisan ignorance.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Kleppe ignored the point that a bunch of right-wing assholes (Jordan, Yost) and the Wall Street Journal (1) predicted that the 10-year-old victim was illusory and (2) seem to have been demonstrated to be partisan losers, as usual.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your bigotry, fairy tales, and backwardness can carry anyone in the modern, reality-based world, that is.

[Frank Drackman]

You'll go blind if you keep responding to yourself Jerry

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If I were blind, with one hand tied behind my back and shackled at the ankles, it would still take at least a dozen clingers to keep up with me. Besting a bunch of obsolete, poorly educated hayseeds is not particularly difficult work.

Thanks for the concern, though.

[shawn_dude]

Yes! Let's focus on:
- Fake News!
- Illegal immigration!
- Law Enforcement caught a rapist!
- The fetus' tragedy!

And let's totally ignore:
- Repeal of Roe meant that Ohio could force a 9 year old girl (a 4th grader) to carry a baby to term for 9 months at likely risk to her health. Victimized by her rapist and then victimized by her own government.

But wait, don't act now, because one shouldn't be giving young children "sex education" in classrooms, right?! And having a now 10-year old girl grow with pregnancy in her 5th grade class is totally okay and totally won't lead to questions.

[Sarcastr0]

Saw the 1955 Guys and Dolls.

Hilarious miscasting of Marlon Brando.

Sinatra had some pretty great acting moments.

[bernard11]

Nitpicking, Sarcastro.

It's a great show - all versions.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, don't get me wrong, it's great. The patter in many of the songs is like Sondheim before Sondheim.

[Voize of Reazon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub2k8peORcc

[Frank Drackman]

Frankie was great in everything,
my Nome'de Guere's partly an homage to Old Blue Eyes (and Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Wolfman)

FD

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Frankie was great in everything "

Not the husband/father part of life.

[Ridgeway]

I got chunk of guys like you in my stool!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Deftly played.

You're still just swimming in my wake, though.

(More Hartman, just as good -- check out "Reagan mastermind snl," too)

[Ridgeway]

There's a lot of things we won't be telling Mrs. Clinton about.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Phil Hartmann was as good as anyone Saturday Night Live has had.

[Ridgeway]

You are not always wrong 😉

[bevis the lumberjack]

I stumbled across a 1966 hip thriller called “Blowup” the other evening. The movie tried too hard to be avant garde, but it did feature a not lip synched entire song performance in a nightclub by the Beck and Page version of the Yardbirds. Which was way way cool.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My favorite clip like that is seeing Buffalo Springfield playing "Bluebird" on an episode of Mannix! That was unexpected.

[apedad]

Freedom for Brittney Griner (and Paul Whelan)

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3555543-freedom-for-brittney-griner-and-paul-whelan/

The one thing I wanted to highlight is this statement, “How many Americans are currently detained overseas, and who tries to ensure they return safely? The exact number of detainees is classified.”

Why is it classified?

The other countries already know the names and numbers of US citizens they’ve detained so we don’t have to protect disclosure from them.

And I'm sure family members have some knowledge too.

So our govt is only hiding this info from. . . the US people?!?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Brittney Griner episode shows how little America really cares about the WNBA.

Like next to zero.

[Sarcastr0]

It makes money. Why the hostility, do you not think capitalism is doing a good job?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Making a statement of fact is violence against the WNBA!

Were you at those Capitol Hill meetings this week?

[Sarcastr0]

I said nothing about you being violent. You okay?

Enough people find value in the WNBA for it to make pretty good money. When it comes to entertainment products, that's what matters, not whatever your point was.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I said nothing about you being violent. You okay?

You didn't get the reference, or are you just playing Sarcatr0?

Enough people find value in the WNBA for it to make pretty good money. When it comes to entertainment products, that's what matters, not whatever your point was.

Why do you think the WNBA makes pretty good money?

[Sarcastr0]

I sincerely don't get the reference; not as terminally online as I pretend to be.

The WNBA makes tens of millions, when last I heard.

[Sarcastr0]

UPDATE: A bit of Googling and it looks like I was wrong - WNBA has tens of millions of *revenue* but negative profit; it is subsidized by the NBA.

Still not sure about the hostility - either this is a loss leader, a long-term investment, or you must believe that the NBA management is unwise or does not like profits.

Or else you don't have Faith in the Markets.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's legal armor against sex discrimination lawsuits, maybe.

[David Nieporent]

No.

[Bob from Ohio]

"t looks like I was wrong "

Oops, White Knight falls off horse.

[Sarcastr0]

I correct myself when the facts don't align with my assumptions.

Doesn't stop you lot from calling me a liar, but I care about my integrity more than many on here do.

[gormadoc]

Long-term investment I'd think and the negative media from ending it might lead to more loss than keeping it. Team losses don't matter so much since ownership is largely vanity in any case.

[bernard11]

Long-term investment I'd think and the negative media from ending it might lead to more loss than keeping it. Team losses don't matter so much since ownership is largely vanity in any case.

Way more plausible than some sort of "legal armor against sex discrimination lawsuits."

I can see the NBA thinking it helps interest women in basketball in general.

[bernard11]

Apparently the WNBA loses $10M a year and is subsidized by the NBA.

That's pocket change of course. I also note that, per the article, the league raised $75M - its first capital raise ever - from a group of investors including Nike, Michael Dell, and some others.

Easy to see how Nike, at least, has a business interest in keeping the league going. Gotta keep those swooshes on TV. For th eothers, gee, who knows? Maybe the think it's a good investment - you know, capitalism at work.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Some Diverse Berkeley Law professor was on Capitol Hill this week accusing Sen. Hawley of committing violence against trans people because he said men couldn't get pregnant, which she claimed denies the existence of trans people.

That's the reference.

It isn't hostile to state the factual observation that people don't care about the WNBA. Just like it isn't committing violence against transgenders to state men can't get pregnant. It's a biological fact.

[Sarcastr0]

Um, OK.

You do seem to not like the WNBA for whatever reason. I could speculate, but needn't.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Maybe I don't like the WNBA for the same reason everyone else doesn't like the WNBA, as shown by the revenues.

Of course, that couldn't find a way cross your mind. Instead you make these subtle insinuations as if I had some nefarious or immoral reason for disliking the WNBA.

Here's a pro-tip for you, Federal. I don't give a shit about your alien virtues and morals.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I can’t see who that is or what they’re saying, but it seems to be one of those guys who is threatened somehow by women playing sports. The quality of the WNBA has no bearing on whether Griner deserves to be held in Russia.

And the money she makes playing overseas dwarfs what that loser makes anyway.

I know Griner - she and my daughter played against each other in high school and my kid had to try to guard her despite a foot height differential. I don’t like her personally. But she doesn’t deserve this crap.

[Bob from Ohio]

"she doesn’t deserve this crap."

She had illegal drugs. She doesn't deny it.

The fact that she is semi-famous and an athlete doesn't give her a get out of jail fee card.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like the WNBA resembles red states in some respects . . . not so popular, less successful, subsidized by others

[bevis the lumberjack]

Did she? Do we know what she says about it?

I haven’t seen where Putin has allowed her to speak publicly.

Just because Putin’s Russia accuses someone of something doesn’t make it true. Not even close.

[Brett Bellmore]

The WNBA's revenue in 2021 was about $60-70 million.

The NBA's revenue last year was $10 billion. 143 times that.

Now, I wouldn't say that $70M is chicken feed, I wouldn't mind having it. But, no, by major sports standards, the WNBA is NOT making good money. They've actually been routinely running millions of dollars in losses, and are kept afloat by a subsidy provided by the NBA.

All of this was quite easy to find with a quick search, so it's beyond me why you think they're making good money, when they actually routinely operate at a loss.

[Sarcastr0]

'by major sports standards' doing a lot of work here. Why are you using that standard?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, duh: Because they're a nation-wide professional sports franchise. They're basically a female clone of the NBA, just one very few people are interested in watching. If the NBA is to be considered a major sports franchise, why would the WNBA not be judged by the same standard?

Full disclosure: I don't watch either. The only women's sport I have any real interest in is gymnastics, because I was into gymnastics in college before an injury forced me to drop it, so I have some appreciation for what they're doing.

[Sarcastr0]

Because they're a nation-wide professional sports franchise
So is soccer. Curling is world-wide!

You're framing is outcome-oriented and makes no sense. Directly comparing the NBA and WNBA is bullshit since no one was saying they were comparable.

[wreckinball]

Yeah they lose money. Most woman's sports excluding Olympic years don't make money because compared to men's they are inferior,

WNBA is like watching a HS boys game maybe? Why do I want to pay to watch that? That's why they will never compete with men's sports.

The women's National Soccer team, best in the world, got creamed by a TX HS boys all star team,

They don't deserve equal pay because it's not an equal product

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Men and women aren't perfectly interchangeable equals?

Oh my lands, someone get me my fainting couch!

[Voize of Reazon]

On the rare occasions that I watch tennis I usually find the women's matches more interesting because they showcase skill more than power.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I attend at least as many high school basketball games as I do professional basketball games. I generally see plenty of people in the stands. I think it likely that high school basketball outdraws professional basketball in some important contexts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I’m surprised you’re allowed with 500ft of underage children.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's your QAnon fixation talking

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why the hostility"

His statement contained no hostility.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why the hostility

Why are you such a pathologically dishonest piece of shit?

[tankfixer]

How many American citizens are still abandoned in Afghanistan ?

[apedad]

New York Donut Shop Operators Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/new-york-donut-shop-operators-sentenced-prison-tax-evasion

Bagel Company Owner Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion and Wire Fraud Conspiracy

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/bagel-company-owner-sentenced-prison-tax-evasion-and-wire-fraud-conspiracy-0

Man, that's a tough crowd in the Torus-food producers category.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, they were kind of sh**ty bagels, anyway. 🙂

Good bagels are tough to find.

Q: What is your favorite bagel, and what are your favorite condiments?

[Brett Bellmore]

Greenfield's Bagels and Deli. Garlic. The good ones they keep in a separate cabinet from the rest.

[Krayt]

I would used to say onion bagles, and I mean the ones with onion and a little poppy seed in it, not those joke onion bagles with lil' dry onion ears flipping out everywhere.

But my truest love are egg. No, poppyseed. Wait.

Anyhoo, chive cream cheese.

[apedad]

Sorry not a bagel kinda guy.

But we can talk about donuts! (Homer Simpson drool....)

[Brett Bellmore]

Crullers, obviously.

[Mr. Bumble]

Dunkin' Donuts jelly sticks.

[bernard11]

Onion bagels, undoubtedly. Mysteriously not that easy to find.

Scallion cream cheese, though chive is also worthwhile.

Cinnamon raisin bagels are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll defend cinnamon raisin bagels. They're pretty good toasted with butter.

[bernard11]

First, I don't like raisins.

Second, even though I do like cinnamon, a bagel is not the appropriate pastry for it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only time I want to eat something donut shaped and cinnamon flavored that doesn't have some chew to it, is if I'm dunking it in cider. I love that crisp surface a sliced and toasted bagel gets, and the soft raisins are a nice contrast.

But we're in "a matter of taste" territory.

Darn, I'm really feeling bad about being on an intermittent fast diet, and not eating breakfast.

[Commenter_XY]

It's true = onion bagels done right are hard to find.

I confess, I enjoy a cinnamon raisin bagel from time to time. I'll say an extra Al Chayt as atonement. 🙂

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

An egg onion bagel from any Mom & Pop shop on Long Island, with plain cream cheese. Maybe a slice of lox if you're in the mood.

[SRG]

Everything bagels.

And living in Nassau County LI, I get excellent bagels.

[Commenter_XY]

I do envy you = And living in Nassau County LI, I get excellent bagels

(the taxes are something else, entirely) 🙂

[bernard11]

Sounds like they were running some sort of tax evasion ring.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've asked this elsewhere, but this IS the open thread, so why not?

Are states like NY not at all concerned that a Republican administration in 2025 could hit them with charges under Section 242 of Title 18? Deprivation of rights under color of law?

The Supreme court ruling seemed clear enough, both on the impermissible basis for denying a carry permit, and that getting one IS a civil right.

I doubt that the legislature is at much risk, but if I were a cop or prosecutor, or anywhere in the chain enforcing these unconstitutional carry restrictions, I'd be sweating that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Unlikely. Here's why.

1. What are they actually going to do to the states?

2. As a cop or prosecutor, this would fall solidly in qualified immunity. You're doing what you thought the law was.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. They wouldn't do anything to the states. They could fine and jail the the people actually enforcing the unconstitutional law, though.

2. Qualified immunity protects you against civil suits. This would be a federal criminal prosecution, which qualified immunity is inapplicable to, and state level prosecutorial discretion is no protection against.

This law was specifically targeting state and local governments violating constitutional rights with the consent of local prosecutors and perhaps the legislature. Exactly what's going on in NY right now.

7 year statute of limitations if nobody is killed in the process of violating the right. So the fact that Biden is President now doesn't protect them, unless he issues some sort of mass pardon for all gun control related crimes on his way out. Which is why I don't think Republicans should run on doing this, they should just spring it after he's safely out of office.

[Krayt]

When in the course of human events, tides turn to Republicans in charge again, columns will be written in panic, "What if they start doing to us what we've been doing to them??!?"

Literally written, not figuratively. As has happened in the past.

They wrote such stuff when Trump won, fearing social ostracism i.e. cancellation. That it didn't happen is irrelevant. They feared it. Because they knew it is a nasty trick.

They wrote such stuff right after Bush took out Iraq and the Iraquis were cheering him on and a little kid was pounding sandals on the face of a Saddam statue being dragged through the street. My mother in law, down for a visit, parroted an NPR discussion from earlier that day, waxing fearful of the political power Bush have to get re-elected and wreck their stuff.

[Krayt]

Iraq freed. Democrat talking point concern: Oh no!

[Randal]

I literally can't understand what you're talking about. I blame myself, truly.

Do you think Brett is a liberal?

Is there some set of rights that you wish Republicans were suppressing under color of law, if only it weren't for Biden's enforcement of section 242?

Are you sad about inflation but happy about its impact on Biden's approval ratings? If so, can you not sympathize with your mother-in-law?

[Krayt]

My point was in response to Republicans springing it on them once office changes.

They were warned. Then the Democrats were warned. And again. And again.

I just fill my popcorn bowl as "we" suddenly have concern about what will happen to "us" when "they" take over and do to "us" what "we've" been doing to "them".

For varying definitions of us and them.

[Randal]

I mean, I sort of get it, but I don't see how it applies here or to your mother-in-law or to cancel culture or to really any of the things you mentioned. Personally, I don't think it even applies to the filibuster. So you might be over-applying this particular maxim to scenarios it doesn't fit. Just a thought. Not everything is tit-for-tat.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, don't prosecutors get absolute immunity in this instance? What's the 'crime' here...the actual charge you will hit a prosecutor (or civil servant) with?

(Don't misunderstand, I personally believe what NY is doing is a cynical (and wrong) response to Bruen, and that it will ultimately backfire - it is the reaction of a typical New Yorker when they think they're 'dissed')

[not guilty]

A state prosecutor's absolute immunity applies only to civil actions for damages. There are problems with the kind of federal criminal prosecution Brett has posited, but absolute prosecutorial immunity is not one of them.

[Commenter_XY]

Hey, thanks for the clarification not guilty.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" it will ultimately backfire "

Ultimately, modern America will arrange a Supreme Court that spanks gun nuts and imposes adult supervision in that context.

I sense the gun nuts don't see it coming. They seem to genuinely believe their unpopular, backward, antisocial positions are going to survive in modern America -- mostly by ignoring a half-century of culture war results and the predictable prospects of improving demographics in the American electorate.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur....tell us again when SCOTUS will be expanded? You told us last year in March is would be done by end of 2021, but somehow Congress didn't get your memo.

What gives?

As for state regulations, they'll need to be decided upon (post Bruen) and then litigated. That will take a while.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just as soon as Democrats have the votes. This has been explained, but it apparently takes half-educated, bigoted, superstitious yahoos quite a while to catch up.

(The votes of gape-jawed, corrupt hillbillies from West Virginia and flighty refugees from the Mormon community do not count as reliable votes.)

As America continues to become less rural, less religious, less backward, less bigoted, and less White, time will sift this in the proper direction.

[Commenter_XY]

Well Arthur, you'll need to get the votes first. You don't sound quite as confident today as you did back in March 2021. 😛

You tell me....do you think anyone can have a gun in their home for any reason, Arthur? What do you feel are the limits of 2A? What restrictions would you like to see?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am increasingly confident, as clingers overplay their doomed and weak hand, that the mainstream will use its victory at the marketplace of ideas to impose adult supervision -- in some cases severely -- on the culture war's deserving losers.

I believe the Constitution (although not necessarily the Second Amendment) safeguards possession of a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.

I expect stringent qualifications (background checks, training, insurance, registration) to become standard. I hope the backlash against gun absolutism does not interfere with a right to possess a gun in the home for self-defense, but sense a reasonable prospect that it might because gun nuts will press to the bitter end and the response to that could be harsh.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, we agree about possessing a firearm for home defense.

States can make their own judgments on what firearms regulations, if any, are needed. NY will be more strict than TN.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

States will have a role, but I expect federal regulation to develop in this area.

[Frank Drackman]

Keep spanking your nuts and you'll go blind "Reverend" Jerry

[John F. Carr]

According to a set of model jury instructions I found (https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf) the defendant must have "fair notice" of the right in question and "fair notice" is the same as the "clearly established" test used for qualified immunity. The notes cite United States v. Lanier, 117 S. Ct. 1219 (1997) which I have not read.

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe Bruen actually constitutes fair notice as to the unconstitutionality of subjective standards in this context.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Put California in jail! All of them!

It’ll cheapen up the real estate so I can move out there.

[not guilty]

Brett, how do you surmise a prosecutor could prove willfulness under 18 U.S.C. § 242, if officials are acting pursuant to presumptively valid state statutes that have not been determined to be invalid? (Assuming the existence of probable cause.)

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not presumptively valid at this point, is my point.

[Sarcastr0]

Another radical shift in the law you just assume your way into.

Why aren't people more worried about a radical shift in the axioms underlying our judicial system changing? It is a mystery!

[John F. Carr]

"Good cause" requirements are not valid. "Sensitive places" has not been much litigated, except that the validity of at least some sensitive place bans can be assumed. Likewise the requirement that you produce witnesses to your good character has not been litigated, as far as I know. Lawyers are likely to support such laws because they had to convince people of their good character to get admitted to the bar.

[bernard11]

I have yet to see a good definition of "sensitive places."

Are they places where, if guns are allowed, it is more probable that they will be used than elsewhere?

Or are they places where a shooting would do particular harm? That looks like a far-fetched distinction.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Whether someone has 'good character' is clearly a subjective requirement, which SCOTUS was quite clear on being prohibited.

[not guilty]

I am sure that that issue will be litigated, and I suspect that it will be resolved in favor of the challengers. Pending the determination of such litigation, however, governmental officials are entitled to rely on the New York statutes.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm curious then:

How many times can SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally say that subjective requirements aren't allowed, before NY imposing such upon those wishing to exercise their rights becomes criminal in nature?

Do they just get to keep making up new subjective requirements forever, without any consequences for deliberately violating the rights of their citizens?

Or at some point will Justice step in and put these assholes in prison for their antics?

[not guilty]

"They're not presumptively valid at this point, is my point."

Making shit up again, Brett?

A legislative enactment, unless and until it is determined by an appropriate tribunal to be unconstitutional, enjoys a presumption of validity:

Police are charged to enforce laws until and unless they are declared unconstitutional. The enactment of a law forecloses speculation by enforcement officers concerning its constitutionality -- with the possible exception of a law so grossly and flagrantly unconstitutional that any person of reasonable prudence would be bound to see its flaws. Society would be ill-served if its police officers took it upon themselves to determine which laws are and which are not constitutionally entitled to enforcement.

Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 38 (1979).

Even a determination of unconstitutionality does not vitiate an antecedent arrest made while the statute remained in force. Id., at 40.

To act "willfully" under § 242, it is not sufficient that the accused had a generally bad purpose. To convict, it is necessary to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the purpose to deprive the victim of a federal constitutional right. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 107 (1945) (plurality).

Where a § 242 defendant acted pursuant to a state statute, which had then not been declared unconstitutionally invalid, the task of proving scienter would likely be insurmountable. I doubt that the government could avoid a judgment of acquittal as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(a).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

When SCOTUS says "subjective" requirements are not allowed, and NY continues to insist upon subjective requirements such as "good character" references, what part do you think is still presumed valid?

I believe it's abundantly clear that NY is deliberately giving SCOTUS the finger.

[not guilty]

A legislative enactment is presumed to be constitutional unless and until it is adjudicated by a tribunal with authority to do so to be unconstitutional. Police and prosecutorial action taken pursuant to such a statute, while it remains in force, cannot amount to willful deprivation of federal rights for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 242.

Have you read the DeFillippo decision that I have cited? The presumption of constitutionality attaches upon enactment, and government officials are entitled to rely upon that until the statute is ruled invalid.

[Sarcastr0]

That'd be an incredibly authoritarian move.

Not even during the Civil War or nullification crisis or the height of segregation was that kind of thing prosecuted.

No, I don't think a 2025 GOP administration would be so blindly zealous as to create martyrs like that.

Confusing one's opinion for widely shared facts regarding the law all too often leads to confusing your opinion for having a monopoly on virtue. That way lies rationalizing some pretty awful stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

And deliberately violating 2nd amendment rights isn't an incredibly authoritarian move?

And at this point NY and several other states ARE deliberately violating the 2nd amendment, there isn't any serious doubt that they know their new laws in response to Bruen are unconstitutional.

[Sarcastr0]

Assume your conclusion is a great way to rationalize any awful thing. Nationalize those nasty state courts if they can't get it together! Send in federal troops to indefinitely occupy the place!

There are plenty of examples in history of jurisdictions having idiosyncratic takes on the law. And the judiciary has been quite competent to deal with them, invoking the executive as required.

*no one* should be so certain that they're willing to jail those who are enforcing disagree with their take on the law. That kind of self-certain righteousness has a history that's more or less exclusively dictatorships.

[Brett Bellmore]

Then you might as well repeal the code I cited, it has no application.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, that's ignorant. Maybe look into when it has been applied.

Hint: it's not to fight about the constitutionality of duly promulgated state laws.

[not guilty]

Brett, you still haven't addressed the § 242 requirement that the accused act willfully. How on earth would the Department of Justice prove scienter in the face of an authorizing state statute, enacted subsequent to Bruen, which by its own terms authorizes the conduct at issue and which, as of the time of such conduct, has not been adjudicated to be constitutionally infirm?

Dance around the question as if it were a maypole all you like, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a culpable mental state is essential.

[Bob from Ohio]

"proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a culpable mental state is essential"

Let 12 men and women decide that, right? Its what you want about the January 6 riot.

[not guilty]

With a post-Bruen state statute having authorized the subject conduct, and the statute having not been adjudicated to be constitutionally infirm by any authorized tribunal, how would the prosecution avoid judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's proof under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(a)?

I am curious. Have you ever tried a criminal case to a jury, Bob?

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, so 12 men and women don't get to decide this, just cases against people you hate. Be consistent for once.

[not guilty]

Judgment of acquittal is appropriate where no rational trier of fact could find every element of the offense to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On a Rule 29(a) motion, the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

Where a state statute enacted subsequent to the decision in Bruen specifically authorizes the defendant's conduct, and where that statute has not been adjudicated to be unconstitutional by an appropriate tribunal, no rational trier of fact could find the defendant's conduct to have occurred "willfully" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 242, and the case should not go to the jury. That is how the presumption of constitutionality operates, and the accused would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

I note your avoidance of my question as to whether you have ever tried a criminal case to a jury.

[Bob from Ohio]

LOL, you noted something. Do you want a cookie?

God no, I have more self respect than to be a criminal defense attorney. Lie down with dogs etc.

[not guilty]

Bob, a capable lawyer should be able to try either side of a lawsuit with roughly equal facility. I never wanted to be a prosecutor, but that was not because I couldn't do that kind of work. I just never thought I could get used to the stick up the butt.

Your comments on these threads are remarkably bereft of legal analysis. I take it that you don't have the chops -- and also that you don't care that you don't.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Too “much self respect” is a weird way to say you lack the practical skills, intellectual ability, emotional fortitude, belief in the constitution and the adversarial system, and ethics required to be a good defense attorney.

But I suppose it’s good that you have self-respect since that’s likely the only place you’ll actually get it.

[Sarcastr0]

Shades of Jim Crow.

'It may not be the law being applicable per se, it's about whether jury members will be down with guilt based on partisan umbrage.'

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey why are you changing the subject to every court in DC or a blue state?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm pointing out what Bob seems to be hoping for, not what your imagination has conjured up.

[Ed Grinberg]

Isn't it just a little bit "authoritarian" to knowingly deny people their constitutional rights (right after a Supreme Court decision reaffirming those rights)?!

[Sarcastr0]

Well, then the key is to combat authoritarianism with some of your own! Fascism them before they fascism you, eh?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It’s the Paradox of Authoritarianism.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0....Let me ask you this: Is NY wrongly trying to obstruct 2A rights in the aftermath of the Bruen decision?

[Sarcastr0]

Interpretations of the caselaw can differ. In fact, they are supposed to; that is why we are 50 States.

Beyond the 2A, there are lots of examples of districts being pretty wrong. Death penalty and 4A spring to mind. There are ways to deal with it that don't involve this kind of tyranny in the name of freedom.

Authoritarianism for a good cause is still authoritarian.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, but I am asking you for your opinion: Is NY wrongly trying to obstruct 2A rights in the aftermath of the Bruen decision?

[Sarcastr0]

I have no idea; 2A is very much not my area of law and neither is it my area of interest.

I think there is a natural right to self defense, and also that American gun culture is pretty extreme. Beyond that, I don't really dig in.

[Randal]

My understanding is that NY has done exactly what Bruen said. They now accept self-defense as a good cause to issue a license.

Banning guns in a bunch of specific places doesn't have anything to do with Bruen. It's not enough to say that NY is violating the sort of general thrust of Bruen. It's either violating Bruen or it isn't, and it isn't.

CA might be a better target for this theory. My understanding is that what they're doing could conflict directly with Bruen.

[Brett Bellmore]

Their wildly over-expansive 'sensitive places' is abusive, but not clearly enough so to constitute more than a stubborn resistance. I expect clarification on this point soon.

The requirement that a posted approval of concealed carry be present to carry into a building is pretty dubious, but avoids directly contradicting Bruen. But I don't see how it can stand.

The demand for access to all your social media accounts is pretty abusive, and clearly intended to provide intel allowing pretextual denials on the basis of 1st amendment exercise, but also manages to not be directly contradicted.

But the "good moral character" requirement re-institutes the arbitrary discretion the Court forbade. I think that's where they're just outright violating Bruen.

[Randal]

The social media / good moral character is CA, not NY, right? I don't care enough about this issue to learn every nuance, but that's what I thought I knew.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I can't speak for CA, but it is in fact part of NY's new gun control bill.

https://gizmodo.com/new-york-guns-handgun-permit-social-media-1849157412

It is also of course, blatantly unconstitutional.

[Randal]

Looks like the social media stuff is there, but that article at least didn't mention an explicit "good moral character" requirement, especially one interpreted as broadly as the CA AG wants to.

https://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/state-attorney-general-suggests-considering-applicants-ideological-viewpoints-in-denying-carry-licenses/

I don't see how asking about social media accounts by itself would violate Bruen. It's certainly gross. I assume it's just pointers to already-public information? What's the default presumption if a person has no such online presence?

The CA stuff seems in pretty clear violation to me. You lose your right to self-defense if you're "racist"? That's not going to hold up.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

My theory, as someone who does not and never will live in such a place, is that NY will construe your responses to be made under penalty of perjury.

Therefore if you claim no social media accounts (I believe over the prior 3 or 5 years), and the State decides to check up on that and finds that you lied, they'd prosecute you for perjury.

The simple fact is: They're asking in order to look for subjective reasons to deny someone their rights. I happen to believe it's blatantly illegal because we all have the right to association, and that does not permit the Government to demand the lists of with whom we have previously, or intend in the future, to associate.

One could also make the argument that it's an illegal search and thus a violation of the 4th Amendment. What I have previously written on the internet anonymously is no different than demanding my personal journal. Both involve my protected First Amendment expressions which the government is not entitled to demand solely because I intend to exercise a different right.

[Randal]

That's certainly one possibility.

Or, it might be something more akin to a background check, where you list some voluntary references and public, attributed social media evidence to establish that you're not a serial killer. In this version, the state would never deny a license based on your associations or opinions, but only on evidence of disqualifying characteristics like being mentally ill or violently criminal.

It's probably somewhere in between, but it's hard to know based on that one article. It might be hard to know until we start seeing some as-applied court cases.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Are they really "public, attributable" references?

On this site, I go by my name (or do I?). On other sites, I go by a different moniker.

It is not public information as to what sites and usernames are actually mine, therefore the commentary attributed to me is also not public information.

If they wish to check against those adjudicated as mentally ill, or those who are felons, then they can use the background check features available to them already, as THOSE records are in fact, public.

[Randal]

That's what I'm not sure about. I doubt it's "everything you ever published online." It might just be more like, we're going to Google you, but the results might be ambiguous, so why don't you also tell us your Twitter handle and Facebook alias so we can skip the part where we try to figure out if we're looking at the right Jason Cavanaugh.

[not guilty]

Brett, you are the one who posited criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 242. Why do you avoid discussing the culpable mental state under that statute?

[bernard11]

The requirement that a posted approval of concealed carry be present to carry into a building is pretty dubious,

What about a law prohibiting carry, concealed or open, on privet property if the owner posts a sign to that effect?

And if that's OK, what is the difference between the two rules?

[Mr. Bumble]

Since there is no prior restraint in passing laws, aren't all laws passed by a legislature and signed by the executive presumed to be constitutional until a court rules otherwise?

[not guilty]

"[A]ren't all laws passed by a legislature and signed by the executive presumed to be constitutional until a court rules otherwise?"

That is correct, and an arrest made pursuant to such a law is not vitiated by a subsequent determination of unconstitutionality thereof. See, Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979).

[not guilty]

More precisely, a search of the arrestee's person pursuant to such an arrest is not a Fourth Amendment violation where probable cause to believe the suspect law had been violated existed.

[dwb68]

no, for the same reason NY made silly arguments at the SC, arrogance. well before 2025, the lawsuits being filed will win, plaintiffs will get 1983 fees. It's not the politicians money, so they don't care. They get what they want: to blame the courts and everyone else for their own internal problems.

[ReaderY]

Hi Brett. During the 1990s, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Scalia, and other conservative justices had a friendly but real-money poker game going on in their homes. It got into the news.

Now, gambling was and as far as I know still is strictly illegal in Virginia, and that includes penny poker games among friends in private homes.

My question to you is, SHOULD the Democrats have impeached and removed all the justices who participated in the poker games from office and replaced them? Of course they could have. My question is should they have.

It seems to me that your the-law-is-law argument constrains a conclusion that Congress was violating its duty by not removing them and having Clinton replace them with Justices more to its liking. If the law is the law and a crime is a crime is a good argument in a case involving interpretation of a newly minted precedent whose meaning people dispute, surely the law-is-the-law argument is all that much the stronger when a well-established, long-standing law whose meaning is clear, like Virginia’s gambling law, is involved.

[ReaderY]

Moreover the state officials here are motivated by what they believe to be the public interest and good public policy. Whether they right or wrong on that, I don’t think it can be denied that is their subjective motivation and they are being wincere about it.

No such public-service motivation existed for Supreme Court justices to violate the gambling laws.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now, gambling was and as far as I know still is strictly illegal in Virginia, and that includes penny poker games among friends in private homes.

Va. Code § 18.2-334 does contain an exception for games among friends in private homes, and per Westlaw it's been in effect since 1975.

[Ben_]

Do people who get away with something 100 times in a row worry about getting punished for the 101st time?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are states like NY not at all concerned that a Republican administration in 2025 could hit them with charges under Section 242 of Title 18? Deprivation of rights under color of law?

Are they worried? It certainly doesn't seem like it.

Should they be? Probably not. A § 242 conviction requires proof of willfulness, i.e. that the defendant subjectively believed their conduct was lawful. As long as the defendants personally believe that the law are consistent with Bruen and the second amendment generally (which I imagine most of them do, and which is what their legal advisors are telling them), then that's a complete defense, even if you or I think that position is gravely mistaken.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Is it time to break up DC?

Washington DC has been growing over time, pretty dramatically. In population, money, and power. It's the richest state/district in the country, with also one of the highest Gini coefficients. It's also been growing liberal...increasingly so. To the point where DC is the most liberal place in America (in some ways more liberal than even San Francisco or New York City).

And as the center of the federal government, that's having profound effects of groupthink that puts the federal government and DC out of sync with the rest of the US.

Is it type to rectify that issue? To disperse the federal government (especially the leadership) to different areas of the country, in order to put it more in sync with the rest of America. Two proposals are considered.

1. Move the heads of government agencies out of the DC metro area. The CDC is already in Atlanta. Move the DOJ to Kansas City. Move the FBI to Indianapolis. Move Treasury to Philadelphia. And so on. In this area of intercommunication, the government can be effectively dispersed to be more in touch with the people.

2. Rotate the meeting place for Congress. Congress "meets" for every year in Washington DC. But why? Why not rotate where Congress assembles to various different cities, on an annual basis. Move it to Pittsburgh in year 1. Des Moines in year 2. And so on. All that's really needed is a meeting space large enough for a few hundred people. And we have convention centers and such all over the US. By moving Congress around, more people can effectively see their Congressmen and Congresswomen in action. While simultaneously Congress can see...really see...how the rest of America lives.

These are commonsense solutions, which can really help bring government "back to the people" and out of the clouds.

[Martinned]

By the way, it's cute that you think that if Congress met in Des Moines, they'd end up seeing how the rest of America lives. They'd see the airport and whatever hotels the Federal government rents for them, but they're hardly going to end up in the suburbs or in any part of town with an income below 200% of the average.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Pretty sure if Congress was meeting in Des Moines for an entire year, at least a few of them would see the suburbs.

[Martinned]

A few of them would probably buy a suburb. Whether the people of Des Moines would be suitably grateful is a different matter.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What kind of arrogant garbage is this?

You really believe in the coastal elites dictating to flyover rubes, don’t you?

You should be upset that our masters have so lost touch with ordinary people, because among other things that’s given us Brexit and Trump.

[Martinned]

What is it about what I wrote that makes you think I don't agree with you on that? I just don't think moving Congress to Des Moines would fix anything. Maybe if US elections weren't for sale you'd end up with fewer millionaires and billionaires in Congress?

[Randal]

Does DC become a state at that point? Then sure!!

[Mr. Bumble]

No, it goes back to being a real swamp.

[Kazinski]

Speaking of swamps, I wonder if anyone has ever noticed a glaring problem with the 23rd amendment.

The text says Congress gets to decide how DC's 3 electors are selected.

Now as a hypothetical say before the 2020 election there were GOP majorities in both houses, so Congress passed a law that it would appoint the 3 electors by joint session a few days after the general election?

It would be perfectly legal for Congress to hijack the districts electors, but it would probably need legislation to do it.

If my proposal to devolve all the residential areas to VA and MD were followed Congress would still have to decide how to select the electors, so they'd either have to repeal the 23rd or pass legislation to do something like assigning them to the candidate that won the national popular vote.

But at least we wouldn't have the problem of 10 homeless people living on the Mall claiming the right to select the 3 electors.

[Krayt]

No. DC should go back to the states that gave up their land for that purpose.

This will also satisfy the whiners who want them to have a right to vote, or something, and don't secretly just want two more senators for their party, because that would be cheap, cheesy, and wrong, and only the other party does stinking political tricks, not us, not no way, not no how.

[Randal]

I don't secretly want two more Senators for my party.

[bernard11]

I don't either. I openly want them, not secretly.

DC's population is greater than either WY or VT, and not much less than AK or ND.

[Randal]

Exactly. Why would it be a secret? I also want Puerto Rico and two Californias for the same reason.

[Krayt]

Fair enough, if it was because this is the shining city on the hill, come here and live free.

But "I want two more senators. Puerto Rico, you want to give up tax free status, right?"

Now many would, anyway, as would I. But at least you admit it is for a smarmy reason, not because you want people to join the great shining city on the hill. You don't care about the tax issue, but some might. Because their wallets are irrelevant to that prize: two more senators.

Rather refreshing you admit it. Two of you, actually.

And the Republicans don't want it for the exact same reason. Both sides are smarmy. The one derrogating this country as crap and not a shining city on the worldwide hill, want states joining!

The side that toutes the US as the shining city on the hill, get this.

Wait for it.

Doesn't want new states!

Both sides are arbitrary power hungry hacks that will say anything and do the exact opposite, as necessity-for-power-of-the-moment screams.

[Randal]

Which side is the side that you think touts the US as a shining city on the worldwide hill?

That was sortof the Reagan / NeoCon thing, but they're all long dead. MAGA certainly doesn't see the US that way. It's more like, let's be a walled city way off on an island by ourselves.

[bernard11]

Krayt,

I said DC, not Puerto Rico.

I absolutely don't think PR should be forced into statehood if the Puerto Ricans don't want it.

OTOH, if they do, then they should get it.

[Kazinski]

I'm fine with DC still being the capitol, but it would be pretty damn easy to devolve everything except the Capitol Building, White House, Supreme Court and the mall back to Virginia and Maryland, then the district would have no residents, and the problem of representation is solved.

Well almost solved, the 23rd amendment is and will be a problem.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Didn't Trump try to do that, and wasn't he met with extreme resistance?

[John F. Carr]

Yes, he tried to move the Department of Agriculture closer to agriculture.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I think he tried. But a move like this would require more bottom up support from Congress.

[Sarcastr0]

Guys, the USDA *did* move to Kansas City. Entirely without Congressional input.

It was neither an easy nor particularly well thought-out move. But it absolutely happened.

[Bob from Ohio]

National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Economic Research Service are only part of USDA. 550 employees out of 100,00

[Sarcastr0]

Well, that's OK then.

[Bob from Ohio]

Why not? Research near farms seems like a good idea.

Lots of farms in DC?

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like a good idea is not enough to make 550 people choose between their jobs or the lives they've built.

You can make a business case, go for it. Ag's business case was basically found to be bunk by GAO.

[Bob from Ohio]

Bureaucrats in the GAO in DC don't want to approve a precedent.

You, like all bureaucrats, think government exists mainly to provide you a job.

[Sarcastr0]

Ad hominem. Twice.

I read the GAO report. You did not. Because you don't care a lick about cost-benefits, you just want people you don't like to suffer.

[Kazinski]

He did move BLM to Colorado (it's since moved back), but the results were SPECTACULAR:

"Most of the BLM staff did not relocate from the nation’s Capital to Colorado. Earlier this year the Department of the Interior released numbers showing that of the 328 D.C.-based BLM headquarter employees whose jobs were moved to offices in the West, only 41 stayed with the Bureau. The rest — just over 87 percent — retired or found employment elsewhere."

[Sarcastr0]

That sounds good only if you're a zealot who cares neither about people nor thinks too hard about government.

[apedad]

Is it time to break up DC?

YES!

Cede 99% of the actual land back to Maryland and make "DC" just the triangle between the WH, Lincoln Memorial, and Congress/SC.

All the other federal bldgs would be protected like fed bldgs in any other city are protected.

[Brett Bellmore]

Requires an amendment, though, to repeal the DC presidential vote amendment.

[John F. Carr]

The House has ultimate control over DC's electoral votes. For now that power is delegated. The House, or Congress, could pass a law declining to choose electors. And Nate Silver's domain name would become worthless.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The House, or Congress, could pass a law declining to choose electors."

Fat chance they'd actually do that, though.

[apedad]

"1. Move the heads of government agencies out of the DC metro area."

The only reason this isn't a good idea is in the case of an emergency where you need the senior staff together (and may relocate to whatever emergency bunker they now have identified like the bunker at the The Greenbrier Resort in West Virginia: https://wvtourism.com/today-show-greenbrier-resort-bunker/).

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think that bunker is part of the plan anymore.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Right, if the SHTF, they're gonna hunker down with their peers somewhere in Davos or something.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, a certain number of "Emergency Staff"...you don't need. You don't need the AG as "emergency staff" in a bunker. And in fact having the various heads separated by hundreds of miles would be better for continuity in an emergency.

[ThePublius]

"The only reason this isn't a good idea is in the case of an emergency where you need the senior staff together...."

I thin you have this exactly backwards. That would be like gathering the entire Pacific fleet on one place, and we know how that worked out in 1941.

Distributed is better. Modern communication makes that possible.

[Mr. Bumble]

I a real national emergency or worse yet an attack, how well and for how long do you think "modern communications" will continue to function?

[ThePublius]

With the diversity of carrier mechanisms we have, quite a long time, in my opinion, especially with the help of Elon Musk.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you actually want the members of Congress and the bureaucracy to "go native", you need to isolate them from each other, and make sure they're immersed in native culture.

Keep them physically away from each other, require members of Congress to reside in their districts at all times they're not on vacation, and they can just meet virtually. With all the meetings permanently archived and publicly accessible. Make it a crime for them to communicate with each other outside official channels.

DC can be retained as a huge museum, with the people currently living there relocated to someplace else, and the living areas converted to park land.

[apedad]

". . .with the people currently living there relocated to someplace else. . . ."

As a self-proclaimed libertarian, you sure have an odd way of supporting libertarianism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you unaware that a good deal of the population of DC lives in slums? You could buy out most of the occupied space in DC relatively cheaply, and still give them a great deal on the land.

[apedad]

A libertarian supporting eminent domain....

Are you aware a larger population in DC lives well above the national average and the poverty rate in the last 20 years varied between 15% - 20 %?

I live about 30 miles from DC and travel regularly there.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah confidentiality is never required for good decision making!

And your analogy of 'immersed in native culture' is...a choice.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Constitution actually mandates a default lack of confidentiality, unless they vote to make a matter confidential; "Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy;"

But the proposal would likely require a constitutional amendment, and the same amendment could place a high bar on voting for confidentiality.

[Sarcastr0]

First, you cite a part of the Constitution that gives wide discretion - actually the opposite of what you offer it for.

It looks like you took my quote and thought I was arguing that confidentiality is *always* required for good decision making, but that's not actually the inverse of my sarcastic statement.

Second, I was making a policy argument, and you went and hid behind invoking the Constitution as the arbiter of good policy. Maybe engage with the statement and don't hide behind talismans.

[Brett Bellmore]

I cite it for the proposition that the Constitution imposes a default of transparency. You really want to dispute that interpretation?

I would allow secrecy (But NOT exemption from recording!) with a super-majority vote.

[Sarcastr0]

You start with the extreme and sweeping: 'all the meetings permanently archived and publicly accessible'

I say sometimes transparency is required for good decision making.

You say that the Constitution assumes a default of transparency (though Congress has complete discretion in departing from that default).

My objection was a policy one. You cite the Constitution as though that's the locus for good/bad policy.

Now you double down like the legality is what you were talking about. Except that your thesis was superlative, and is thus contradicted by the exact Constitutional language you cited!

This is pretty bad, Brett.

[Sarcastr0]

sometimes confidentiality is required, rather.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, there's only so much you can do there, in terms of "going native". But I think getting them out of DC is a start, and one which is reasonable.

[Longtobefree]

Could you explain how that would work with this?
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—"
(US Constitution, Article one, section 8)
Kind of looks like "the Seat of the Government" has to remain in DC. You know those congress critters you want out in the wild?

[Sarcastr0]

Common sense solutions!

Your spite has alighted on blaming where stuff is located for things you don't like. That's 'something must be done; this is something' nonsense, like the worst government policies.

But it would be cruel to all the workers who built their lives in DC, so there is that!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Plenty of companies move their headquarters and their employees with them, for various reasons.

The Federal government departments would be no different. The federal employees could move with them or choose to seek new employment. And it's not like the federal government doesn't move people around all the time anyway. So it's hard to just characterize it as "cruelty" when it's so commonplace.

[Sarcastr0]

Companies choose to do shitty things to their employees all the time, doesn't mean you shouldn't ignore that they're shitty.

You don't care about how unhappy moving USDA made folks because they're not folks to you. I consider that a legit cost.

At least you were only dismissive, not gleeful. Like Bob below who continues to out-asshole everyone in the commentariat.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bob below who continues to out-asshole everyone in the commentariat"

Stop, I'm blushing.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You're acting odd here.

The US government moves people around all the time. Most notably with the military, and various military postings. It's part of the job. The employees go where the government needs them. It the same with employers. The employees go where the employers need them. The employer's needs take precedence over the employees wants.

Are you going to argue the employees needs should take precedence? That if "they don't want to" they shouldn't have to move? The employer should listen to then, regardless of what the employer wants? The employees have a choice. They can move. Or they can leave the company. Many chose the latter in your example. And that's their choice.

In terms of employer needs, one of the common needs of an employer is to have a diverse workforce which represents a wide range of viewpoints, especially regarding their client base. If the population or client base is 50% A and 50% B....but the workforce is 95% A and only 5% B....that can be a problem. If 40% of the A's say they would never be friends with a B....that's a bigger problem, especially if the A's are supposed to be working for both the A's and B's. And as a responsible employer, a more diverse workforce would be more effective at satisfying the needs of both client bases.

[rsteinmetz]

The most common reason for a company to move its headquarters is the desire of the CEO.

[bernard11]

Exactly.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But it would be cruel to all the workers who built their lives in DC, so there is that!"

Don't excite me like that!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Bad person being bad. As usual.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you are missing the point that many in Congress are millionaires or multimillionaires. Moving them around will not change the fact that they have little in common with the people they represent.

[shawn_dude]

- We elect representatives from every state who are meant to represent the people in that state. Your comment seems to imply that either they aren't "really seeing" their constituents or that congresspersons representing other states are somehow obligated to "really see" how another state's residents live. They have offices all over their districts and are supposed to travel and meet constituents everywhere in their areas. A good number of these representatives move out of their states and effectively don't give a hoot what their constituents think as long as they vote them back in regularly. Moving them around won't fix that.

- If the wealth of a state, province, or district gets too high, we should break it up? Just make DC a state with its own state government separate from Congress and move on. Why the need to "crack and stack" the district like it's your typical GOP gerrymandering exercise?

If it's "too liberal," maybe it got that way because people voted with their feet. Moving the agencies they work for into conservative states may only result in turning some states purple and mess up all the careful gerrymandering the GOP uses to keep minority control in some places. Are you SURE you want that?!

[tankfixer]

Ban air conditioning in DC.. to show their commitment to "Climate Change"

[dwb68]

Handgun permit in 🙂 (MD)

The waiting is the hardest part.

MD permits are up 700% over last year, a rate of about 210,000 annually in MD. State Police have grabbed an extra 20 people to investigate extraordinarily law abiding people :/

Educated guess, the wait time will be <60 days, which is not bad.

[apedad]

Not all are going to be "extraordinarily law abiding people."

FBI Denial #s, Nov. 1998 - Jun. 2022: total denials 2,109,237

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/federal_denials.pdf/view

And how is one "extraordinarily" law abiding?

[dwb68]

The people applying for a permit to carry already own guns and have already been through the background check process.

Maryland has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country, especially Baltimore, because the felons who are constitutionally carrying their guns in their ass crack and shooting people don't go through background checks or get a permit.

All the resources that are being used to investigate permits could be shifted to keeping violent criminals off the street.

[apedad]

So instead of trying to prevent violent crime, you're OK with allowing violent crime to occur and THEN spring into action.

Sheesh....

[dwb68]

posted in wrong area

lmao. Another example why gun prohibitionists never won a debate involving facts and logic.

Carry permit holders aren't the ones commiting the crimes. Nor will they. Carry permit holders are just looking to defend themselves because the politicians in this state allow the actual violent criminals out of jail consequence free.

[apedad]

"Carry permit holders aren't the ones committing the crimes."

100% agree!

BECAUSE carry permit holders were approved through the screening and folks who couldn't pass were DENIED the permit.

[dwb68]

lol, no.
Every single felon in Baltimore carries without a permit. Once you get out of jail it's easier to get a gun as a felon than it is for a regular person. They don't subject themselves to the process.

Putting up hurdles and obstacles for carry permita only tilts the playing field in favor of felons and criminals, and subtracts resources from catching them (the murder clearance rate in Baltimore is abysmal).

Carry Permit schemes have not prevented a single homicide in aptly nicknamed Bodymore.

[Randal]

If the criminals all carried weapons, and the civilians didn't, it'd be really easy to identify the criminals. What a boon to law enforcement.

This is why other countries don't have this pronle

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If the criminals all carried weapons, and the civilians didn't, it'd be really easy to identify the criminals.

So you're promoting "stop and frisk"?

[Randal]

It's like getting the mob boss on tax evasion. You get the criminals on gun charges when you've got no other case.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It's like getting the mob boss on tax evasion. You get the criminals on gun charges when you've got no other case.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? First you have to know who is carrying a piece under their clothes. The reference to "stop and frisk" was what most people of average or above intelligence would regard as a clue.

[Randal]

My answer was no, it's useful anyway. If you arrest a suspect on probable cause, and the suspect has a gun, you can file gun charges even if there's not enough evidence to charge the underlying crime. No need to stop and frisk for that.

[dwb68]

lol, easier: everyone who runs from the police has legs, just arrest everyone. Intent literally means nothing.

[bernard11]

Carry Permit schemes have not prevented a single homicide in aptly nicknamed Bodymore.

It is impossible to know this.

[dwb68]

since Baltimore has one of the highest homicide rates in the country while MD has the lowest permits (pre Bruen), it is knowable.

[Randal]

Wow, you must know a lot of amazing things! Like how breathing in carbon makes you fat. That's why there's so many obese people nowadays. Damn you carbon dioxide and your inexorable rise!

[bernard11]

Actually, it's not knowable. At all.

[dwb68]

Its as knowable as evolution, or black holes, or climate change lol. People are running around without permits killing each other in Baltimore at record rates. Most of the perps (that we know) are felons, and 85-90% of the victims are felons too.

[bernard11]

You are an idiot.

That is all.

[dwb68]

The impact is knowable and here is a prediction. Background: MD permits to carry are up 8x since Bruen. Whereas de minumus number of permits (24k) were issued in the past, State Police are on pace to issue 200k.

I predict the impact on homicide in Baltimore: flat to down.

The impact on other crime is always impossible to predict because the 1st they tell you in a carry class is be the 1st one to call the police if you draw your gun. There will be a lot of crime reported that previously went unreported for various reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

Statistics won't tell you about every single incident.

[Randal]

I have to agree with bernard on this one. The idiocy of this statement is not worth the attempt to untangle:

Its as knowable as evolution, or black holes, or climate change lol.

It reminds me once again that we should make critical thinking an alternative to math in high school. Especially now that so much of politics and the economy are based on clever people manipulating the soft minds of the masses. Use your phone to calculate the tip. Train your brain to recognize dumb shit.

[wreckinball]

Because it doesn't prevent crime. It prevents self defense.

[bevis the lumberjack]

In your mind, how should we be preventing violent crime?

[Frank Drackman]

by executing violent criminals in a speedy fashion.

[Randal]

And here I thought you were pro-life! Sill me.

[Frank Drackman]

Pro life for the unborn, whether criminals to be or not

[apedad]

Did you know that Lynyrd Skynyrd’s song “Sweet Home Alabama” was in response to Neil Young’s “Southern Man?”

Southern Man

I saw cotton and I saw black
Tall white mansions and little shacks
Southern man, when will you
Pay them back?
I heard screamin' and bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?

Sweet Home Alabama

Well I heard Mister Young sing about her
Well I heard old Neil put her down
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A southern man don't need him around anyhow

However, both sides didn’t hold animosity towards each other and just the opposite, enjoyed each other’s music.

https://www.countryliving.com/life/entertainment/a43715/sweet-home-alabama-song-meaning/

[Brett Bellmore]

Given that one line, yeah, it was kind of obvious.

They're both good songs, though. Southern Man kind of reminded me of driving through the Philippines. Mansions and cardboard boxes in close proximity. Though the cardboard boxes were often on beachfront property, which was kind of nice.

[John F. Carr]

See (hear) also Drive By Truckers' _Southern Rock Opera_.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fuck Neil Young, and yes I am jealous that he is shagging Daryl Hannah.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Yet another day off Bumble? We can look forward to your incessant 'thoughts' on every subject all day long?
"Fuck Neil Young"
You're a joke.

[Mr. Bumble]

Feel free to mute and fuck you too.

[Frank Drackman]

Southern Jewish Man here,
like NY and LS

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Given...

"Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A southern man don't need him around anyhow"

...I hereby award you today's "Captain Obvious" title.

[Ridgeway]

You know what else I just realized? Every Boston song sounds the same.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Neil doubled down a bit on the southern disapproval with "Alabama" on the Harvest album. Not one of his better efforts, so "Sweet Home Alabama" was kind of answering both songs. Also Young wrote the song "Powderfinger" for Lynyrd Skynyrd to record, but events like plane crashes intervened.

[apedad]

Ky. woman warning others after picking up a $1 bill landed her in the hospital

https://www.wkyt.com/2022/07/11/ky-woman-warning-others-after-picking-up-1-bill-landed-her-hospital/

Not sure what happened in the story above, i.e. if her story is true but lots of studies have shown that 80 – 90% of cash has traces of all kinds of drugs (and other stuff), due to you can't buy meth off the street with a credit card.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-exactly-how-often-cocaine-and-feces-show-up-on-your-dollar-bills-2017-07-11

[Noscitur a sociis]

Not sure what happened in the story above, i.e. if her story is true

It's not.

[dwb68]

lmao. Another example why gun prohibitionists never won a debate involving facts and logic.

Carry permit holders aren't the ones commiting the crimes. Nor will they. Carry permit holders are just looking to defend themselves because the politicians in this state allow the actual violent criminals out of jail consequence free.

[shawn_dude]

You're just a walking irony dispenser.

[Bob from Ohio]

Inflation refuses to transit again.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, 6% inflation was transitory. I predict 9% inflation will be equally transitory.

[Sarcastr0]

We shall see. Core inflation is lowering. As is PPI. Hopefully those are leading indicators.

Gas prices back down, I note. Presumably not worth congratulating Biden for.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure, when they get back down to where they were when he took office.

[Sarcastr0]

Neato goalposts. I'm sure they are sincerely offered.

[Harvey Mosley]

Wow. Are you assuming bad faith?

[Sarcastr0]

With Mr. Bumble? No need to assume.

[Mr. Bumble]

Enjoy your McDonald's dollar menu meal with your 40 cent/gallon savings or do you drive a taxpayer subsidized Tesla.

[shawn_dude]

US gasoline prices are also government subsidized to a tune far, far larger than Tesla or any other solar market has received. Remember that when you're driving your gasoline vehicle complaining about the price of a US gallon of gas.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Really?

No, not really.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, the stock market's already there!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Core inflation is lowering. "

Who needs to buy food anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

Very clearly not what I said: 'Hopefully those are leading indicators.'

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's see what the gas prices do when he's done emptying our strategic petroleum reserves. In the mean time, I'm still paying about twice as much to fill a tank as I did before Biden took office.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL if you think those reserves have much to do with gas prices; they're performative at best.

But I have noted how that talking point has fallen off everyone's lips alluva sudden. I presume some new illegal caravan is going to show up any moment now.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sure. It’s not supply and demand. It’s Putin!!!! And greedy evil refiners!!! Supply and demand is white supremacy.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one who said it's not supply and demand, it's Biden.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s because Biden is suppressing supply. Your understanding of this is super simplistic.

[Sarcastr0]

So if prices go up, it's Biden suppressing supply.

If prices go down, it's just supply and demand....

[bernard11]

And the war in Ukraine is having no effect?

Have you actually measured any of this, broken down the sources of supply problems, looked at sources of demand to see whether it has increased also?

What do you think of the Saudis agreeing to increase their production? Credit to Biden?

[shawn_dude]

They're not "caravans," they're "invasions!!!1!"

[Mr. Bumble]

From what I've read, prices being down is attributed to decreased demand.

[Harvey Mosley]

No, not worth congratulating Biden for since I'm still paying 5.85 t0 6.19 a gallon when I was paying more than two dollars cheaper before he took office. If prices go below what I was paying before he took office I'll give him credit for it.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems you won't congratulate Biden on anything, but you will blame him for everything.

[Krayt]

Some credit, sure, as late to the party. 6 trillion dollars ago they were warned of inflation potentential, and roared ahead anyway long after covid shutdown was recovering.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P.J. O'Roark

Quick! We can squeeze out more trillions and buy ourselves some goodwill at the...next...elec...oh my god.

[Kazinski]

PPI is lower?

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. producer prices increased more than expected in June amid rising costs for energy products, but underlying producer inflation appeared to have peaked.

The producer price index for final demand climbed 1.1% last month after rising 0.9% in May, the Labor Department said on Thursday. In the 12 months through June, the PPI increased 11.3% after advancing 10.9% in May."

And core CPI is still 5.9% which was above expectations.

In June we are hearing pay attention to core CPI because it's lower, in July we will be told pay attention to overall CPI because gas prices will be down and that number will be lower.

But what ever the number you are looking at 5.9 core CPI or 11.3 PPI, we are going to have a nasty recession that's going to wring it all out.

We can call it the Putin recession.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, PPI total went up, but PPI for both good and services went down.
The BLS adds a intermediate-demand component into the PPI as well.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/improvements-to-the-producer-price-index.htm

[Kazinski]

Yes, I'm sure everything is completely under control.

[apedad]

Uvalde mayor blames ‘chicken’ media for releasing shooting video before families had viewed it

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/uvalde-mayor-blames-chicken-media-for-releasing-shooting-video-before-families-had-viewed-it/ar-AAZxwB2?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=80102c8fd63a4e41bbcb131a583a0fe1

Not liking the way authorities are handling this.

[apedad]

Trump Getting Lucrative Bailout for His Unprofitable Golf Courses by Hosting Controversial Saudi Tournament: Report

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-getting-lucrative-bailout-for-his-unprofitable-golf-courses-by-hosting-controversial-saudi-tournament-report/

Of course Republicans totally support this.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Republicans totally support this."

Why not? The article says that the money troubles are based on politics, PGA breaking its contract because it doesn't like Trump.

[bernard11]

Did the PGA break its contract or terminate it?

And do you think the PGA is some sort of left-wing organization? It's not. It's a bunch of country club types who decided the organization's financial interests were best served by not dealing with Trump.

Capitalism at work.

[ThePublius]

What makes this a "bailout?" No U.S. government money involved. The PGA severed its ties with Trump's courses over his politics, and has just found a new customer in LIV. So, f* the PGA, I say! Ha, ha.

[Aunt Teefah]

US conservatives and Saudi blood money: name a more iconic duo.

[ThePublius]

As Biden goes to Saudi Arabia as we speak, on bended knee, to beg for more oil output. Ha, ha, ha!

[Aunt Teefah]

Yeah, Biden does a lot of bad stuff, and this is certainly one such instance. But that absolves conservatives . . . how exactly?

[Krayt]

You have one foot in the door. I extend a hand, and waive a little flag, "Both sides are awful!"

It has some cool holograph shinies on it! You know you want it!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Trump Getting Lucrative Bailout

If you know any grown-ups have one of them explain to you what the word "bailout" means.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This blog has operated for

SIX (6) DAYS

without using a vile racial
slur * and has operated for

THREE (3) YEARS

without imposing (new**) hypocritical,
partisan, viewpoint-driven censorship.

Congratulations !?!?!

* so far as we are aware; the racial slurs are so frequent that some might be missed

** previously imposed censorship continues to be in effect

[Thrax2]

I seem to recall being told that red states with abortion bans would be stepping up after Dobbs to offer financial support for pregnancy and child care. Haven't heard about that happening, though. Anyone aware of new state laws subsidizing prenatal care, childbirth, childcare, etc.?

[gormadoc]

I imagine you'll have to wait for the next legislative session to begin to see new laws introduced.

[OtisAH]

And the one after that. And after that. Then the next one. And the next three following those. And…

[M L]

There are over 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers in the US. Voluntary charity >>>>> government grift handout programs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Crisis pregnancy centers focus on lies, childish superstition, and manipulation, not on support of women or children. They are operated and funded by low-quality people with ugly, obsolete views.

[M L]

No, that's just your lies that the pro-abortion activists made up. Projection.

[Aunt Teefah]

Yep, this is it. Anyone who thought that conservatives were interested in providing any sort of actual support for struggling young mothers is a complete dupe. "Crisis pregnancy centers" it is.

[M L]

Try volunteering at one and see what they do. You'll find out they provide a lot of actual support for struggling young mothers. Or you'll find out they are secretly evil as you suspected and then you can write an expose.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

They were purely attempts to steer pregnant women away from having abortions. Watch them go away in states where abortion is now illegal.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

There are over 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers in the US. Voluntary charity

And Elizabeth Warren wants them all shut down.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're too fucking stupid to know what you're even talking about.

Do a deep-dive on what a "crisis pregnancy center" really is.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Just because you get all of your "knowledge" from Reddit and Democratic Underground that doesn't mean the rest of us do.

[Thrax2]

There are over 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers in the US.

And they'll cover the cost of prenatal care and birth (for the non-Medicaid-eligible) and childcare, will they?

I suspected this was going to be the answer.

[M L]

They are one resource that provides a lot of support.

But ok. You're saying you want people to have their $12k medical bill paid by other taxpayers. First, anyone who financially needs it can get that through Medicaid, but you're specifying people with more income and assets who can't get Medicaid. Also just as a practical reality, people who get medical bills they can't pay just don't pay it, and little happens other than some phone calls, not even a hit to credit rating, and everyone else is paying for this in huge numbers. Also one problem is the rent-seeking medical system is broken and inefficient due to lack of markets, and having the government pay them just makes it worse. But in general, I'm ok with the idea of financial support and incentives for having babies to American citizens who are not on welfare.

[shawn_dude]

This is BS.
What would actually happen:
- You'll be charged late fees by the hospital. They will compound.
- Eventually, you'll be referred to a debt collection company who will continue to compound late fees and also make your life a living hell.
- Your credit rating will take a major hit and it will linger for years while increasing your interest rate on loans.

However, it's unlikely any of that will matter given ongoing financial impact of having a child. You probably won't be in the market for a loan (but getting a car will be *expensive* because it may drive you to "buy here pay here" type sellers who charge eye-watering interest rates) so the worst you might have to deal with are abusive debt collectors that aren't above coming to your place of employment (despite that being illegal in most places.) And having the child might drive you further down into poverty where Medicaid becomes available... so there's that.

[M L]

This is not true. The vast majority of medical debt is never provided to credit reporting agencies. I once didn't pay a medical bill due to gross deficiencies in what the hospital did. They refused any kind of settlement as they thought this would be admitting wrongdoing. Eventually got maybe 2 calls from a collector and then never heard anything else about it. The point is, everyone knows that your health care costs include BILLIONS of extra dollars to cover free ER walk-in care for everybody no questions asked including illegal immigrants, and other health care for anyone who doesn't pay. I'm not saying this is a solution or that people can always get needed medical care and then not pay, I'm just describing a major aspect of our system to get the full picture.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm under the impression that was already a thing pre-Dobbs. And I should know, my wife was 4 months pregnant when I got laid off back in 2008, back in Michigan. She got all sorts of state benefits. Is there a state where that isn't the case?

Or, what are you asking for, pregnancy aid for people who aren't in financial trouble?

[Sarcastr0]

Michigan is not a great example.

The deep red states don't have paid family leave or job protections for pregnancy. Most don't have universal pre-K (nice on this front, OK).

And of course child care assistance grants are hugely backlogged in those states. Who would care about that when we have women to police!

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what you mean by "stepping up" is a comprehensive welfare state, rather than just specific aid to needy pregnant women?

[Thrax2]

1. Yes, prenatal care and childbirth are covered under Medicaid. If you're Medicaid-eligible. Which is a pretty tough threshold to meet. I was asking whether any red states with abortion bans are going beyond that.

2. Tell me more about childcare subsidies in Michigan.

[Sarcastr0]

If you care so much about these little babies you're invoking government power, but don't want to care *for* them with any government action, that is a contradiction of morality so far as many are concerned.

[M L]

So far as many people with room temperature IQs are concerned.

"If you are against killing you must be for socialism otherwise you're a hypocrite lol!!!11"

[Sarcastr0]

Awesome arguing.

Really smart stuff.

[M L]

Exactly commensurate.

[Sarcastr0]

For all the arguments that the pro-choice movement is all about sacrificing children to a modern Moloch, could you explain how you are not doing the same, but for markets?

[M L]

Sure. Markets and capitalism are responsible for lifting billions out of poverty and creating what prosperity we enjoy. Markets and capitalism provide higher standards of living and longer lives. Pretty simple.

Those who are anti-humanity favor things like killing unborn humans, stifling markets and competition so that megacorps take over everything, and authoritarian institutions that do things like use a virus as an excuse to shut down small businesses nationwide, crush freedoms and rob the American public blind by printing trillions of dollars.

[M L]

With all of that said, I would support government incentives for people to have more babies. Not at the indigent welfare level, though, where incentives are already powerful to have more kids as a means of permanently living of the govt - they might need to be penalized if anything.

[Sarcastr0]

Markets have done great things; doesn't mean they're right all the time. And certainly not worthy of Moloch-esque blind worship.
Capitalism is also full of misery.

You need to make a specific argument that supporting pregnancy and early childhood is going to result in something bad, not just 'capitalism good.'

And fuck right off with calling those who disagree with you on methods and rights as 'anti-humanity.' That bullshit rhetoric ends with 'first thing, lets kill all the liberals.'

Though with your Covid as a conspiracy to bring on tyranny theory you hint at, I can only presume you *want* to start mass purges, but don't want to personally get your hands dirty.

Only reason to buy into that crazy shit is if you are already deep into some 'liberals are the cause of all evil' childlike worldview.

[Sarcastr0]

ML, you don't break even having children to get more federal support.

That was not true in the 1980s, and *certainly* isn't true after Bill Clinton's welfare reform.

[shawn_dude]

"Megacorps tak[ing] over everything" is a function of a fully free market. It inexorably leads to authoritarianism because corporations are authoritarian by nature and an unfettered market tends towards massive conglomeration and monopolies which naturally depress worker power and drive down wages. Nothing shuts down a small business faster than a bigger business buying out or starving out a competitor.

Nothing says "higher standards of living" like the former coal mining towns in Appalachia or all the manufacturing jobs fleeing the US for cheap foreign labor. Detroit--free market success story.

[M L]

shawn_dude, No, that is a function of globalist policies, a powerful centralized government, money printing central banks and loose monetary policy, excessive regulations that create compliance economies of scale, and increasing government control over the economy to dictate winners and losers. The Republican party from its inception to today has largely been a big-government corporatist party. And so are the Democrats but worse. Personally, I favor free market capitalism but also decentralized self-government. You have to keep in mind a "free market" is just a social and legal construct enabled by the enforcement of contracts and property rights, etc. It's not state of nature and it's not global or international at all except to the extent it's made that way. I don't agree with certain policies, like the idea that we should tax and regulate our own industries to death and then turn around and import things from China without penalty that would meet none of our labor, environmental, or any number of other standards domestically. That is just shooting yourself in the foot, or more accurately one decades-long con job to rob America blind, the "giant sucking sound" as Ross Perot put it.

[Sarcastr0]

Capitalism means the rich get richer.

That's not the government; it's a well known and obvious effect.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Awesome arguing.

Really smart stuff.

Well it sure as hell turned your argument into a grease stain on the ground...that asinine argument being that one can't legitimately be opposed to murder if one doesn't also support government entitlements for those not murdered.

[Bob from Ohio]

If you oppose murder, you must give welfare to people who don't murder!

[Sarcastr0]

Think of the babies cuts both ways.

Both you and ML made counterarguments via semantics. That bespeaks a telling shallowness.

[Bob from Ohio]

"telling"

Your favorite word. You always know the secret meaning to a comment.

[Sarcastr0]

I do rather enjoy that construction, it is true.

To put it less elegantly: argument by definition is shallow, more deflection than engagement. You and ML both preferred to invoke a definitional argument rather than really engage with the moral question here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who's engaging in argument by definition?

The fact that you don't understand their arguments is telling.

[Sarcastr0]

The fact you think 'it's a socialism!!' is an argument is sad.

You didn't used to be this reflexive and unthinking.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The fact you think 'it's a socialism!!' is an argument is sad."

Lol. Nobody made that argument, Gaslightro.

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/14/thursday-open-thread-92/?comments=true#comment-9598111

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. If you think society should use force to make sure there are babies, you should also make sure society actually takes care of those babies. (NB you should ALSO take care of babies in a pro-choice regime too, but you know, baby steps)

[M L]

"use force to make sure there are babies"

Please, keep your fantasies to yourself.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What do you think an abortion ban is? It’s using force and the threat of force to achieve a certain outcome. Do you not understand that’s what enforcing a criminal law entails? It’s right there in the word. What do you think an arrest is? What do you think is required to keep someone in prison? What do you think an execution is!?

The only fantasy is yours pretending that that’s not how government works.

[M L]

So then by your logic are laws against homicide made to "use force to make sure there are people"? I doubt anyone ever enacted a law against homicide thinking that. The law does nothing to bring people into existence. Rather it seeks to prevent an unjust and wrongful act against an innocent party. Using force to make babies does happen but..think Boko Haram or something.

[Randal]

Rather it seeks to prevent an unjust and wrongful act against an innocent party.

... on threat of force.

Tax laws force people to pay taxes. Abortion laws force people to have babies.

[Aunt Teefah]

Really lays bare how fraudulent the "protect the children" nonsense is from right wingers. It has always been a pretext to punish what they regard as "loose women" - nothing more. Any meager attempt to give babies a modicum of protection from the vile conditions this late-capitalist shithole country foists upon them is "socialism." Enough said.

[M L]

Free market capitalism creates broad-based prosperity, higher standards of living, longer lives, and more people having more than enough.

Alternatives like socialism create less prosperity, more poverty, death, etc.

[Aunt Teefah]

Ok, you've memorized a bunch of capitalist pablum, congratulations. Now what the hell does that have to do with family leave and funding pre-K? Why not have markets AND those things?

[M L]

There is no need for the government to be involved in education. The effect of government taking over education has been to ensure that people are less and less educated and more and more ignorant.

But if the government is to be involved, it should be state governments only and they should give vouchers that people can use at any school of their choice or for homeschooling. Pre-K is just child care. Education starts at home. Don't outsource the raising of your children to others if you can avoid it, especially not to the government.

[Aunt Teefah]

Again, nothing but insipid slogans that are totally non-responsive to issues raised. Further demonstrating how fraudulent and pretextual "protect the babies" is the motivating reason for abortion bans.

[M L]

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

― Frederic Bastiat, The Law

[Randal]

Wow M, you've really got nothing but the most shallow of ideological talking points, huh. I have noticed you've got zero ability to engage in conversation. You're not thinking, just regurgitating. In other words, ya basic.

[bernard11]

The effect of government taking over education has been to ensure that people are less and less educated and more and more ignorant.

What was the overall level of education in the US before public education became widespread?

[Krayt]

"I hate capitalism," he fumble-fingered into his iPhone, then took a bite of a flawless, oganic banana in the middle of winter.

"But that's not wha..."

"Yes it is."

[Aunt Teefah]

"You criticize feudalism, and suggest that a better system be adopted. Yet you continue to consume the grain harvested from the feudal fields. Curious!"

- You in 1450

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why don't we just make the grain come up out of the fields without planting or plowing!"

- You in 1450

[Bob from Ohio]

"vile conditions this late-capitalist shithole country foists upon them"

Yes, its a shame what Biden and the Democrats have done to the Trump prosperity.

I though "shithole country" marked one as a vile racist?

[Aunt Teefah]

Yes, Team Red good, Team Blue bad. America was awesome until Biden came in and implemented woke socialism.

Solid contribution.

[Bob from Ohio]

As solid as you thinking the richest country on earth has "vile conditions" or is a "shithole".

[Aunt Teefah]

What if I were to tell you that a country can be rich in the aggregate, but that much of that wealth is held by a small number of people?

The average American cannot cover an unexpected $1,000 expense. Working class people have negative wealth, no real workplace protections, and no credible prospects for a better life. For the average woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, America *is* a shithole country.

[Frank Drackman]

take care of your own goddamned babies

[Sarcastr0]

But you're forced to have them!

Really a great moral system you got there.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Really a great moral system you got there.

One cannot overstate the hypocrisy of a pathological liar (you) lecturing anyone on morality.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay. And when they can't, then what?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If you care so much about these little babies you're invoking government power, but don't want to care *for* them with any government action, that is a contradiction of morality so far as many are concerned."

Any evidence that there's a lack of people willing to care for unwanted children? IIUC there's a huge demand to adopt newborn children.

[Sarcastr0]

As for children generally, read this comment thread, chief. Caring for children, wanted or unwanted, is apparently socialism and thus cannot be good.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But what's your point?

IIUC in all 50 states, you can drop your kid off at a fire station or hospital or whatever, and the state will make sure the kid is cared for. So what's your complaint about the state not taking care of kids?

[Sarcastr0]

That's a sufficient system to you?! Really?

No way you're that callous in real life.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Beats killing them, don't it?

[Sarcastr0]

Which is not the binary we're discussing - we are discussing benefits for pregnancy and childhood.

Or did you forget?

[shawn_dude]

So the anti-abortion laws are about creating a market for babies? And there's a huge demand to adopt *white* babies.

"President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday," said Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill.

https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4442&context=nclr

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ Who would care about that when we have women to police!”

Hey, no need for violence.

[ThePublius]

Does anyone know what happens when the batteries on a Tesla reach end of life? Cost, support, procedure, etc.?

[Frank Drackman]

The little elves that live in the walls that make the electricity to charge the battery magically convert the batteries to pixie dust. Then they go back in the wall to keep making electricity.

[Aunt Teefah]

They catch on fire as the car locks you inside (unless you've purchased the $49.99/month non-combustion subscription plan).

[John F. Carr]

My recently acquired 2017 gas-powered car comes with a warning that escaping from a locked car requires advanced skills. It's not like an old fashioned car where you move a button or lever.

[shawn_dude]

End of life for the battery pack in the car is not end of life for the batteries themselves. The car's acceleration and charge speed are both impacted by the age of the battery pack. Home power storage, however, is less impacted by these factors so there's a potential market for reusing the batteries in a Tesla Powerwall.

For the car itself, I would imagine the presumption is "buy a new car."

Electrek had some good data on this: https://electrek.co/2020/06/06/tesla-battery-degradation-replacement/

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy Bastille Day.

[not guilty]

Today there is an interesting article at Slate magazine regarding a proposal to locate a reproductive health clinic on a ship in the Gulf of Mexico. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/07/abortion-care-boat-gulf-of-mexico.html All of the states bordering the Gulf are hostile to abortion rights, and a floating clinic may be more easily accessible than traveling by land to an abortion-friendly state.

I haven't looked into this closely, but it is an intriguing idea.

[rsteinmetz]

The cost of the ship has been stated as around $20,000,000. Even if you raise that money transportation from land to the ship to federal waters or beyond will be expensive, probably cheaper to fly the women to another state and back.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it is an intriguing idea."

Its a Trillion Dollar Platinum kind of idea.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I think the Left vastly overestimates the amount of people that actual care about this issue. Once you take out the kool-aid drinkers and party dupes who will always parrot whatever they are told like good little monkeys, you have maybe 1-2% of people.

Butchering babies just isn't going to get people up in the morning to vote and many women are quite happy with hamstringing a man with 18 years of child support and the litany of public/private benefits they get from having a kid (benefits which did not exist back in 1972).

But, hey, if you can get people to donate their money to Murder Boat, more power to ya...

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think the right are definitely hoping that's true, but I'm not so sure. I think most pragmatic Republican politicians probably would rather have seen SCOTUS take the CJ Roberts approach, upholding the law without overruling Roe. We shall see in November.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We shall see in November."

Won't see a thing. Its going to have zero impact.

Dems are already maxed out with white college educated women.

[Krayt]

I think you are right, and I support abortion.

But half the country doesn't. Half of the rest may be lukewarm at best.

People will happily imagine some deep philosophical principle as a law exists year after year, bringing in more supporters as time winds on.

[Krayt]

If they have any shot, it's at the first election when heat is at max.

Oh geeze. They heaved another $6 trillioj onto the debt and your next egg will be worth 80%, sorry, looks more like 70% of what it was before Congress tried to ingratiatingly buy your vote.

[shawn_dude]

"..women are quite happy with hamstringing a man with 18 years of child support and the litany of public/private benefits they get from having a kid..."

I think you need a citation that women would enjoy having to chase deadbeat fathers around rather than have a life and career on their own merits. This comment has the whole "welfare queen" stench to it.

This may seem crazy to you, but women aren't just waiting around to be a baby factory for some dude who gives her money while she squeezes benefits out from Uncle Sam. They aren't handed out as gifts to men as a reward for being born with a penis. Women have their own goals that may or may not include eventually finding a guy and potentially starting a family.

[Noscitur a sociis]

and a floating clinic may be more easily accessible than traveling by land to an abortion-friendly state.

It's a little difficult to imagine how that could possibly be the case.

[shawn_dude]

Distance and logistics. It's far easier to dock a boat in the Gulf Bible belt states and it doesn't have the same ID requirements and opportunities for government to complicate travel. A launch could be cheaper, hold a number of patients, and travel in a straight line. The floating hospital itself would have to be funded through donations.

[John F. Carr]

Are medical facilities and procedures on ships outside of state waters regulated by the flagging nation, home port, origin and destination port, U.S. if within some distance of shore, or by some bizarre lawyer method nobody understands?

Aside from direct regulation, if a U.S. doctor performs an offshore abortion whose law governs malpractice claims?

[John F. Carr]

I wonder also what the answer to the "interstate travel" question is when the travel is out of territorial jurisdiction of the abortion-hostile state but not in an abortion-friendly state. Say Mississippi passes a law giving the father the right to sue over an abortion of his child. Or a prosecutor finds the doctor in his county. Much has been written about what happens if the woman gets an abortion in a blue state. What if the woman gets an abortion in no state?

[Bob from Ohio]

The ship is gonna have to dock for fuel and supplies somewhere from time to time. Could it be seized and the abortionists arrested?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

SS Bad Choices

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843

“‘She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp [general counsel for National Right to Life] said in a phone interview on Thursday.”

This is not a good person. He’s willingly admitting that under his approach he would physically and mentally torture an elementary school child, gravely risking her life even, to have a live birth. No thoughts at all for her life, her childhood, the fact her well-being and the well-being of her family are going to be devastated. Just monstrous cruelty.

All he hopes is that why she understands why some day. Understand why this old man, her government, and her society abused her like that.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Moral questions are hard. But rarely is the right answer ever "kill the innocent third party!"

Also, do not pretend like surgical abortion (and other forms of abortion) do not have wide ranging psychological and physical consequences.

No matter the road this woman (girl) goes down it is going to be a hard one. But she would not have to be on this journey if we cared about our borders in the first place.

[Sarcastr0]

But often is the right answer hang liberals from lampposts!

Don't pretend you give a rats ass about lives other than your own.

Blaming immigration is a clue about that.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Who is hanging anyone by a lamppost?

Don't act like you give a rat's ass about anything like the truth or being anything other than a useful idiot for the democrat party.

[Sarcastr0]

Guardrails? How about lampposts. I think those would be better at preserving liberty.

That's you:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/08/more-on-the-national-constitution-center-restoring-the-guardrails-of-democracy-project/?comments=true#comment-9589518

You got issues.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Nice gaslighting chump. You left out the part where I said lampposts do an excellent job at shining light into the dark abyss of the left. But, hey, what does truth actually matter......

[LawTalkingGuy]

And what’s going to be your answer when it’s not an immigrant who rapes the next one huh? Same thing? You’ll just happily let her be tortured for nine months and burdened for the rest of her life, huh?

I mean this is all so easy for you to say isn’t it? It isn’t your ten year old body that’s going to be wrecked. It’s not you who’s risking death. You’re not the one who is going to be burdened even beyond the rape itself to a lifetime of parenthood. You’re not going to be the one who has to watch your peers get to have normal lives without you. It’s her.

Christ, you care so little about her that you called her “this woman” and then casually put “girl” in parentheses. Girl is correct, she’s a ten year old girl. You couldn’t even be bothered to fucking delete five letters and make that clear.

[Commenter_XY]

LTG....hold on a sec. Consider this: Isn't there an adage to the effect that terrible cases make for terrible law? What we have here is a pretty terrible case (child rape, followed by pregnancy), that is exceptionally rare (thankfully), and would make for terrible 'law making'.

The girl (a child, really) obtained an abortion. We'll see more cases like this for a while, and the states will work out the issues you and JtD are talking about. It is Ohio, not Afghanistan we are talking about here.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's just waving the bloody shirt because he thinks its effective.

Sanctimonious fool that he is, he really doesn't care about the girl. Its the political cudgel he craves.

"burdened even beyond the rape itself to a lifetime of parenthood" is an echo of "I don't want them punished with a baby" infamously said by Obama. Libs really believe having a baby is a punishment unless its "wanted".

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Sanctimonious fool that he is, he really doesn't care about the girl. Its the political cudgel he craves.”

FUCK. YOU.

Not everyone is a morally vacuous ghoul like yourself. And when I’ve displayed emotion in the past you’ve said “need a tissue” and called me “weak and pathetic” for it. But now you’re claiming “I don’t care.” Guess that’s an easier thing to believe than the possibility (which deep down you know is true) that I’m simply a better person than you are. It’s easier to make things up about me than it is to confront the reality of who you are: a deeply immoral person.

So again, fuck you you utter disgrace.

[Sarcastr0]

The argument here isn't about the law, it's about the moral bankruptcy of the people trying to defend this.

Minimize, deflect, lie. In service of not accepting this cost.

[Commenter_XY]

Was this not a lawyer making the case for his client, Sarcastr0? = Bopp is the GC for IN chapter of National Right to Life Committee

Now you and I might think that forcing a woman who was raped to carry a child to term that she does not want, is one step too far. The National Right to Life Committee advocates (in the public square as a tax-deductible charity) that life, regardless of how originated, is a life worthy of living. I don't see inherent moral bankruptcy in either POV.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you don’t see the moral bankruptcy in advocating for a child to be physically tortured for nine months, risk death, and have her body and her life devastated, you might need to recheck what your morals are.

[Commenter_XY]

Hyperbole much?

[bernard11]

What's the hyperbole?

[bernard11]

We'll see more cases like this for a while, and the states will work out the issues you and JtD are talking about.

Sorry, XY.

The abortion ban states had plenty of time to "work out the issues." There has been no end of discussion of exceptions for rape and incest and medical issues.

They didn't do it. Why credit them with good faith now?

They don't want to deal with complexities. It might piss off some preacher somewhere.

What they want to do is be sanctimonious brain-dead assholes who utterly refuse to actually think about any issue. And if their laws keep more women barefoot and pregnant, they will like it just fine.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11....abortion and it's state by state restrictions need some time (e.g. a few election cycles) to be sorted out by the people, and their elected state representatives. There is some merit to slowing things down at this point in time. Why? For the last 50 years this has all been an academic discussion (a post Roe world). And a political cudgel. Now it is not academic at all; it is quite real.

There is no choice but to deal with the complexities. That to me is one aspect of Dobbs fallout.

[bernard11]

As I said, the anti-abortion people have had plenty of time to think through the complexities. They have refused to do it, preferring slogans and sanctimonious posturing.

It's no surprise that there are pregnancies resulting from rape, incest, sexual abuse, whatever. It's no surprise that there are potentially serious medical issues of all sorts.

I have zero confidence that any of this is going to get "sorted out."

There's been plenty of time to sort it out, if they wanted to. The fact that they didn't sort it out means they don't want to.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You are a special kind of special, aren't you? Do you think that an abortion is going to magically cure any psychological and physical impact that child has and will continue to experience? Do you have no shame in not even at least pretending to give an iota of care that maybe, just maybe, this child's life would be different if we took immigration and border control seriously? Instead you would rather use her as your abortion poster child because it looks like a nice little political package. That is frankly sick and disgusting. How do you even look at yourself in the mirror in the morning???

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s going to prevent her from being tortured for nine months and risking death in delivery.

“Do you have no shame in not even at least pretending to give an iota of care that maybe, just maybe, this child's life would be different if we took immigration and border control seriously?”

He was here for seven years. Trump didn’t get rid of him. And in any event, like I said, what about the next one?

“child because it looks like a nice little political package. That is frankly sick and disgusting. How do you even look at yourself in the mirror in the morning??”

The utter shamelessness required to accuse others of using someone as a political package when you literally just used the case to make a point about immigration in the prior sentence is remarkable.

You’re accusing me of being disgusting while doing the same thing. It’s like you forgot that when you’re projecting you’re supposed to disguise it a bit better.

I look at myself in the mirror in the morning by not being a terrible person. It’s pretty easy to do, I just think and do the opposite of what you would do.

You should try it some time. Assuming you haven’t already alienated your friends and family by now with your awfulness, they would appreciate it.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You have no regard for human life. That makes you an abjectly horrible person. You dance on the graves of dead kids when it comes to gun control and now you found a 10 year old child to abuse for your own political purposes. That is sick some sociopath kind of behavior.

You are a special kind of pathetic. And that is saying a lot.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“now you found a 10 year old child to abuse for your own political purposes. That is sick some sociopath kind of behavior.“

(Scrolls up)

“But she would not have to be on this journey if we cared about our borders in the first place.”

“Do you have no shame in not even at least pretending to give an iota of care that maybe, just maybe, this child's life would be different if we took immigration and border control seriously?”

Projection as always. I can’t think of anything more pathetic than pretending to be a noble person who would never use a child for a political point in the same thread where you do exactly that.

[Jimmy the Dane]

If you want to see something pathetic just get up from your laptop, go into the bathroom, and look at the person who is typing this dribble in the mirror.

[LawTalkingGuy]

By dribble do you mean your own words? Which I quoted to you? Because that’s what we’re talking about. Literally was just quoting you.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You quoted my perfect and eloquent argumentation to support some kind of weird and off-base assertion that I was "projecting" when it is clearly you who are the inadequate party at this juncture.

You do not care about children. You just care about whoever or whatever will make the best political statement and then you will use that party for those purposes. You are basically a political Jeffrey Epstein.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“You quoted my perfect and eloquent argumentation to support some kind of weird and off-base assertion that I was "projecting" when it is clearly you who are the inadequate party at this juncture.

You do not care about children. You just care about whoever or whatever will make the best political statement and then you will use that party for those purposes. You are basically a political Jeffrey Epstein.”

You seriously cannot be this delusional about things you literally wrote out. Forget who is or isn’t moral…how the fuck do you function day to day?

[Jimmy the Dane]

I'm not delusional. I care about human life and obviously you don't. You just want to use it for your own means and even if that means literally chucking it into a medical waste bin when you are done. In more sane times, you would be committed for such sociopathic tendencies.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well you’re delusional in the sense that you obviously don’t realize that you were using children to make political points but think other people are disgusting and sociopathic for doing so. Or maybe you’re not delusional but just a liar.

Sociopaths don’t tend to empathize with people. I’m empathizing with that girl, girls like her, her family, her life. You are not. You view their lives and their needs as subordinate to your ideology.

“I care about human life and obviously you don't.”

This quote sums you up to a T:

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

[Jimmy the Dane]

Dude you rail against "the unborn" and use them as your political props precisely because they can't speak or advocate on their behalf. They are cheap victims. Sort of like bullying the special needs kid in school because he is easy to beat up. That is what you are doing.

Do you actually know anything about the Bible or Christian religion?

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Dude you rail against "the unborn" and use them as your political props precisely because they can't speak or advocate on their behalf.”

WTF are you talking about!? No one is railing against the unborn.

Do you actually know anything about the Bible or Christian religion?

9 years of Catholic School. 7 years of alter serving. A’s in classes covering medieval and early modern Christian thought.

“They are cheap victims. Sort of like bullying the special needs kid in school because he is easy to beat up. That is what you are doing.”

You are out of your fucking mind.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Hate to break it to you, but you are a psycho.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I think that would have been diagnosed. Alas only depression. And since you somehow only have a JD and not an MD, PhD, Psy D, MSW with a counseling license, I don’t think your diagnosis is accurate.

I hate to break it to you, but being a bad person doesn’t qualify you to make medical diagnoses. Sorry!

[Ben_]

National policy isn't about one criminal act against one person.

If it was, we'd see a clear remedy in enforcing immigration laws and deporting an individual like this rapist before he has the chance to prey on innocent children here.

It's noteworthy that all the authorities involved seem pretty casual about arresting anyone or protecting children from being raped. Using the rape for political gain is what animates them.

[bernard11]

Oh shut up.

Do you think all rapists are illegal immigrants? Here's a clue: that's not true.

[Aunt Teefah]

MYTH: No one is trying to ban abortions in cases of medical emergency; conservatives aren't monsters.

FACT: "Texas sues to block Biden from requiring doctors to provide abortions in medical emergencies" https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/14/texas-sues-biden-administration-over-abortion-rule.html

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The only headline Ken Paxton should be in involves either his trial and conviction for the crimes he committed several years ago and has somehow avoided accountability for, or his death.

Personally, I hope for his death.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ken Paxton can hardly be used as an example of human behavior. I can’t understand what’s taking so long to put his ass in prison, but as a Texan I wish they’d git ‘er dun.

[M L]

MYTH: Sometimes abortion is necessary to save a mother's life.

FACT: Abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life.

[Randal]

You're just trolling now.

[M L]

No, it's true.

Pro-abortionists depend heavily on this myth. So they fight semantic battles to conflate "abortions" (which is where you go in and dismember a baby or do some other procedure for the purpose of intentionally killing it) with other procedures that are medically necessary, such as the early delivery of a fetus from the womb at a time when its chances of survival may be low or none.

[Jimmy the Dane]

"Pro-abortion" is not only an inaccurate label, but also cheapens the life that the procedure ends.

Because the Left just loves "affirming" things, I think we ought to mandate that any baby, yet to be born, must be referred to as a human being. This will be life-affirming. Those who seek to end the existence of said living human being will hence forth be called "murderers" because that is really what they are doing. And those who support a system of legalized murder will be called "murder supporters".

Finally, since it is fashionable to mandate these kinds of new language mandates, if leftists don't abide by this they will be fired from their jobs, drug through the mud by the media, excommunicated by friends, etc. etc.

[Randal]

Oh I hadn't heard that one before. So in your view, it's not really an abortion if the baby probably wasn't going to survive anyway and/or you euphemistically call it an "early delivery" instead of an abortion.

It seems like you may be the one trying to pick strange semantic fights.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Murder supporter.

[M L]

They are very distinct procedures, both physically and in their purposes and intention. So it makes sense to distinguish rather than conflate.

[Randal]

Something tells me it wouldn't fly with the anti-abortionists to just terminate pregnancies as "early deliveries" and say oh well whoopsie, the baby died. But still, we tried, so, not an abortion.

That is, the physical procedure can't be what matters. If the intention is what matters, then you should be fine with exceptions for the life of the mother, since you think those aren't really abortions anyway.

But really, as we all know, you're just trolling. I don't mind continuing to point it out though.

[M L]

Nobody opposes medically necessary procedures like early delivery to save the mothers life in the rare instances where this occurs. Nobody.

If your comment is implying a situation where it is not medically necessary but to "just terminate pregnancies" and "say whoopsie" then yeah obviously. But then it was done with a different intent and purpose so that's different.

[Randal]

So then you agree your whole point is moot semantics. You and people who want exceptions for the life of the mother agree entirely on what procedures should be allowed.

That's as close to an admission of trolling as we're likely to see.

[M L]

Not at all. The fact remains, what most people think of as an "abortion" is never needed to save the mother's life. There are entirely different procedures not similar to abortions that are necessary.

Abortion is never medically necessary

Over a thousand OB-GYNs and maternal healthcare experts joined together to affirm this reality in the Dublin Declaration, which states: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child -- is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

30,000 Doctors Say: “Abortion is Never Medically Necessary to Save a Mother’s Life” https://www.lifenews.com/2019/03/05/30000-doctors-say-abortion-is-never-medically-necessary-to-save-a-mothers-life/

[M L]

Forgot link- https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-never-medically-necessary

[Randal]

How is that not exactly what I just said?

[bevis the lumberjack]

You don’t understand what the word “abortion” means scientifically. A miscarriage is technically called a “spontaneous abortion”.

[M L]

Ok. So then a law outlawing abortion also outlaws miscarriages?

Come on, man. We are talking about legal meaning and what makes sense as a matter of policy and usage.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Actual a few years ago the Texas ledge tried to pass a law requiring that the product of abortion receive a proper burial. To be consistent, they required that miscarried babies be buried as well.

Which is monstrous. Anti abortion extremism is no more appealing than pro abortion extremism.

[Sarcastr0]

ML, you're not this ignorant.

Stop lying.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abortion-child-rape-victim_n_62d040fbe4b0e6251b3a0f79

“This abortion isn’t an abortion that’s why it’s okay” is going to be a thing from now on.

[bernard11]

Actually, he is.

[bevis the lumberjack]

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy it is absolutely necessary to save a mother’s life. Hell, it’s imperative.

[M L]

Even planned Parenthood admits on their website that treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion!

Man, the widespread ignorance and misinformation on this is staggering.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Apparently the State of Texas disagrees.

[De Oppresso Liber]

^ An actual moron.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If you want to be entertained by a really incredible life, do a little research on Ossip Bernstein, a Ukrainian born lawyer and investor who was also one of the best chess players of the early 20th century. He made and lost three fortunes in his life, once when he fled the Bolsheviks in 1918, once because of the 1929 crash, and then when he had to flee the Nazis in Vichy France. In 1918, a Bolshevik officer took him away from a firing squad minutes before his execution, and made him play a chess game for his life. Despite all the turmoil, he continued to play tournament chess at a very high level for over 50 years.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If the Calitol Police invited you into the Capitol on J6, should you still be rotting away in a Democrat Gulag?

[Krayt]

What did you do once in? Did you help force the way in on video, take stuff, or were you that little old man and woman who wandered in?

[Jimmy the Dane]

but INSURRECTION!!!!!!!

The useful idiots don't care about anything other than what their handlers tell them. MSNBC puts it up on the screen and that is what they think until told to think about the next thing.

[Sarcastr0]

That kind of nonsense isn't flying well these days.

It's just a brief tonic for the true believers.

[bernard11]

You know, that whole "tourist" shtick is complete nonsense.

A tourist who approaches a building - say it's a museum and they want to see the paintings - and sees a loud angry mob, broken doors and windows, people fighting, doesn't go in. They get out of there.

Take your Trumpist talking points and go elsewhere.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You mean like how the tourists followed the velvet ropes and that when asked nicely to leave - THEY DID!

[Estragon]

This gent pled on June 23. From the statement of offense:

“ They just breached the Capitol building. That’s it, bro. It’s game time. We all armored up, we got a gas mask. This is what separates us true patriots from everyone else who is all talk—you know, fuck this, fuck that, sitting at home, we out here taking action. It’s Dr. Death in the building and it’s about to go down.”

Forgot to mention staying inside the velvet ropes I guess.

[Estragon]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1515566/download

[Estragon]

Over 300 guilty pleas, and not a single one of these brave patriot defendants thought to mention that they were allowed into the capitol by the police! These people need you and jimmy to join their legal teams

[Jimmy the Dane]

They probably just need not be held as political prisoners by leftists using the legal system to grind their political axes. That would be the ideal state of affairs.

[Estragon]

I take the fact that your rejoinders become ever more pathetic as an indication that the hearings are having an effect. Have a blessed day!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Look at the clinger bright side. Ashli Babbitt is not being held as a political prisoner.

[ReaderY]

On the Texas lawsuit against the Biden administration regarding the administration’s claim that hospital emwrgency rooms have an obligation to provide abortions if they think it the best treatment, to what extent does Texas have a basis for suing? To what extent does it have standing? Why isn’t the letter a mere expression of the admnistration’s opinion?

On the merits, would hospitals be obligated to provide assisted suicide or euthanasia notwithstanding state law if they think it the best course of treatment? Kill a spouse who is causing difficulties for the patient if they think that the best course? Under the administration’s theory, a doctor’s opinion on the best thing to do would appear to override ANY state medical ethics rule.

Would it stop at state law? Why wouldn’t it also override other federal law?

[bernard11]

would hospitals be obligated to provide assisted suicide or euthanasia notwithstanding state law if they think it the best course of treatment? Kill a spouse who is causing difficulties for the patient if they think that the best course?

These things are not medical treatments.

[ReaderY]

I think your argument proves my point. You don’t happen to think euthanasia is a medical treatment. The Stage of Texas agrees with you. But several states (e.g. Oregon, New Jersey, California) say it is. In fact, it’s exactly like abortion after Dobbs, legal in some states but illegal in others (just happens to be legal in fewer, but I don’t see why that should matter.) so exactly the argument for abortion applies to euthanasia. If the treating emergency physician thinks it’s a medical treatment in the context, state law gets overridden. There’s no principled reason to treat the two differently.

I understand killing the person responsible for the patient’s problems is a strong hypothetical to make a point and isn’t regarded as a medical treatment in any state, and you don’t regard it as a medical treatment either. But if we override state law for abortion and euthanasia because it’s the treating physician’s call what is and isn’t a medical treatment, why not for this too? It doesn’t seem to me there’s any principled reason not to.

The whole point here is who decides what’s a medical treatment when people disagree. If federal law makes the treating physician’s opinion on what’s an appropriate treatment override state law on abortion, there’s no reason it shouldn’t override everywhere the two clash.

What constitutes an appropriate medical treatment is often a matter of opinion or at any rate can vary considerably between different people. Different countries routinely have different opinions on drug approvals, one country approving and another not. And opinions on ethical use are even more prone to subjectivity.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Does the NYT writing an article covering for Ray Epps coupled with the curious lack of charges against a guy who is on video instigating innocents at the J6 rally prove that Ray Epps was a FBI instigator?

[ThePublius]

Yes, most definitely.

[bernard11]

Fuck both of you. That's one of the most idiotic things I've ever read.

[ThePublius]

You should read more progressive, leftist stuff, then. 🙂

[Kazinski]

You seem pretty invested in the purity of someone who was either an enthusiastic insurrectionist or an FBI plant.

There isn't any middle ground.

[Sarcastr0]

More the paranoia-fueled excusarama some are in to.

If Jan 06 wasn't a big deal as you claim, dunno why this would matter.

Almost as though consistency isn't part of the deal, just throwing whatever at the wall to support your decision that some light insurrection is good, actually, when your side does it.

[wreckinball]

Ha ha yea sure. See it's being made into a big deal by the DOJ/courts so if the FBI was involved then that too is big deal.

Like when Gretchen was fednapped. It was important distinguishing between fednapped and kidnapped.

[Estragon]

Instigating what? I thought these were all brave patriots, excuse me— brave patriot grannies— who were allowed in and just took pictures?

[F.D. Wolf]

Interesting case from Alabama, which pushes, and I suspect exceeds, the boundaries of the felony murder rule. Casey White has been charged with the murder of Vicky White (no relation).

Most will recall the recent case in which correctional officer Vicky White assisted Casey White in escaping from an Alabama jail. Law enforcement caught with them in Indiana, where the pair led police in a high-speed chase. Their vehicle crashed, and when police reached it, they discovered Vicky dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Casey has now been charged with her death under the felony murder rule, the underlying felony being escape.

I did find a case with similar facts from West Virginia, State ex rel. Painter v. Zakaib, 411 S.E.2d 25 (W. Va. 1991). In that case, defendant Painter recruited three individuals - Woolvine, Barefield, and Sevy - to kidnap and murder White at White's home. The three were foiled by a neighbor who alerted the police. On their arrival at the scene, the police apprehended Sevy. Woolvine and Barefield initially eluded capture, but decided to return to the scene to "rescue" Sevy. A police vehicle chase of the pair, who were in a van, ensued. During the chase, Woolvine committed suicide with a shotgun.

Painter was charged with the felony murder of Woolvine. The Supreme Court of West Virginia held that a felony murder charge could not be supported "if the only death which occurred in the commission of the underlying felony was the suicide of a co-conspirator in the criminal enterprise." Id. at 27.

The court did say some things which I think are incorrect, such as stating since there was no "homicide", a felony-murder charge could not be sustained. There are many examples of a homicide not being necessary to a felony murder charge, such as, for example, when a co-conspirator accidentally kills himself in a bombing or arson case. See, e.g., United States v. Martinez, 16 F.3d 202 (7th Cir. 1994) (bomb detonated prematurely, killing co-conspirator) (Posner, J.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

There are many examples of a homicide not being necessary to a felony murder charge, such as, for example, when a co-conspirator accidentally kills himself in a bombing or arson case.

How is that not a homicide?

[F.D. Wolf]

I don't understand your question, so I assume our terms of reference are different.

A homicide is one person's intentional killing of another. X builds a bomb which accidentally detonates and kills him. There is no "another", so it is not a homicide. Nor is it a suicide, because X did not intend to kill himself. It was an accident. If, for example, Y had paid X to build that bomb to murder Z, it is still an accidental death, but Y might be charged with the death of X under a felony murder theory.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Homicide (in both law and pathology) means killing caused by another person: it need not be intentional. That's why manslaughter is a form of homicide, why criminally negligent and vehicular homicide exist in many jurisdictions, and so on.

[Estragon]

Any of the huckleberry sherbet gang shell out 4K for a ticket to the Trump rally in Greensboro tomorrow? I’m sorry to say it’s non-refundable! You have my deepest sympathies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Still nothing from the proprietor with respect to the insurrection hearings -- not even an update on the endorsement of John Eastman?

Un-American.

Cowardly.

Predictable.

Watch your ankles with this guy, mainstream Americans.

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of J6:

DC police officer in Trump Jan. 6 motorcade corroborates details of heated Secret Service exchange to committee

(CNN)A Washington, DC, police officer has corroborated to the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, details regarding a heated exchange former President Donald Trump had with his Secret Service detail when he was told he could not go to the US Capitol after his rally, a source familiar with the matter tells CNN.

The officer with the Metropolitan Police Department was in the motorcade with the Secret Service for Trump on January 6 and recounted what was seen to committee investigators, according to the source.

I am sure the people eager to declare Hutchinson guilty of perjury based on hypothetical testimony from partisan Trump officials will retract that any minute.

[Estragon]

Forget it David, it’s chinatown

[Estragon]

Also relevant:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/14/secret-service-texts-erased/

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what exactly did he testify to? Exactly, mind you, what were his words? Because nobody is claiming that every word Huchinson spoke, including "and" and "the" were lies. And it's quite plausible the President got irate when his own driver wouldn't drive him where he was told to.

"The officer with the Metropolitan Police Department was in the motorcade with the Secret Service for Trump on January 6 and recounted what was seen to committee investigators, according to the source."

So, more hearsay at this point, we have an anonymous source claiming the officer said something unspecified?

[Sarcastr0]

nobody is claiming that every word Huchinson spoke, including "and" and "the" were lies.

Brett, people were saying nothing she said was true all over this comments section.

Did you forget?

[wreckinball]

Well she got her name right.

[bernard11]

You know, Brett, when someone said that someone in the Secret Service said, that Ornato denies that a conversation took place, that's good enough for you. Rock-ribbed evidence that Hutchinson, testifying under oath, is a "confirmed perjurer," to use your words.

But suddenly this is all just a bunch of hearsay.

[David Nieporent]

Um, Brett, you didn't say Hutchinson might be lying. You said she was a "confirmed perjuror" based on a report that someone from the secret service said that someone else from the secret service would be willing to testify and contradict her.

No "what exactly," no "his words"… and no oath.

Now we have an actual witness testifying under oath and you suddenly need precise details.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Was that dude right that AOC has a hot Latinx ass?

[Sarcastr0]

I can't for the life of me understand the performative asshole crowd.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

She's getting a taste of her own medicine. Screw her. She's garbage.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You and the Volokh Conspirators deserve each other . . . and everything that is coming to you as the culture war continues.

Carry on, clingers. Your betters will choose how far and how long.

[wreckinball]

You know if personally you were to deliver on this you would get the crap beat out of you don't you?

[wreckinball]

I recall she was picking on Kavanaugh who actually didn't do a public boo hoo after he was harrassed.

Hypocrisy is funny.

[Randal]

I can't for the life of me understand the performative asshole crowd.

They've explained themselves quite well.

First, they've decided that the only party plank that really matters is to own the libs, i.e. be assholes.

Second, they've decided that a good way to stoke their own grievances is to claim that the first amendment supports not only their right to be assholes (true), but their right to be liked by the people that they're assholes to (false).

Third, they've become addicted to the dopamine hit that comes from stoking their own grievances aka assdebating.

[wreckinball]

It was really ass rating which OK. Open thread tight ass.

[wreckinball]

I think she's a complete idiot but she is hot. So I vote yes

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If you can be arrested for watching what is on Hunter Bidens laptop, why is he walking free?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are Epstein and Maxwell the first underage sex traffickers to sex traffic children to nobody?

[Estragon]

Well there’s prince Andrew

[wreckinball]

No. But the same folks think trans woman are actual woman so they'll say anything .

[Estragon]

RIP Ivana.

[M L]

Why has the New York Times published a sympathizing piece about Ray Epps calling him a victim?

The New York Times has published hundreds of insane foaming at the mouth articles about Jan 6, calling it an insurrection and so on, celebrating the death of Ashli Babbit.

Ray Epps is a man who is on video inciting the January 6 crimes more so than any other person. And now the New York Times is lying for him, protecting and coddling him, with a long interview and article where they asked Ray Epps zero key questions. They even state that he might be killed by Mexican drug cartels! What's up with that?

[M L]

Anyone know if this data is legit? It shows vaccinated persons getting more COVID.

https://twitter.com/DrJuliePonesse/status/1547763057895518209

[Martinned]

It's almost as if old people are more likely to be vaccinated and more likely to die of Covid.

[M L]

Canada: Not vaxxed? Death sentence is appropriate for you.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/07/15/canadian-court-rules-it-was-legal-to-deny-unvaccinated-person-organ-transplant/

[Martinned]

Some centers (ours included) have made a policy that requires SARS-CoV-2 vaccination before a candidate’s registration on the national organ waiting list. (...)

Most centers have a checklist of required assessments, which include up-to-date vaccinations before the organ transplant operation can take place (typically hepatitis A and B, tetanus [diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus], pneumococcus, measles, human papillomavirus, influenza, and others dependent on geography and age). Some private insurers have even required SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to gain transplant coverage.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2790274

[wreckinball]

In case you haven't noticed Canada sucks. I mean it was always touted as some sort of equal to the US but in reality that wasn't true. It always kinda sucked.

But now it really sucks.

[Randal]

Na doi, it's like prioritizing non-smokers. You don't get new organs if you aren't going to take care of them. It's not your-body-your-choice until it's actually in your body.

[M L]

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is promoting to youth an online chat space that discusses sex, polyamorous relationships, the occult, sex change operations, and activism, and is specifically designed to be quickly hidden while being used. It also mixes LGBT adults and children and is run in part by Planned Parenthood.

Called Q Chat Space, the platform is advertised on the CDC’s LGBT Health Youth Resources page, archived here. The chat service, which describes itself as “a community for LGBTQ+ teens,” is available for those ages 13-19, can be hidden from parents, and focuses on a number of mature themes.

Q Chat hosts conversations on a number of different mature and sexual topics, including “Drag Culture 101,” “Sex and Relationships,” and “Having Multiple Genders,” intended for ‘Bi/Pan Youth.”

https://www.breitbart.com/social-justice/2022/07/14/cdc-directs-lgbt-children-secretive-chat-sex-changes-activism-occult/

[Randal]

The occult! Heavens to Betsy!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you think Federal employees should be having private sexual conversations with children as young as 13?

[Randal]

Because I believe in the life of the child.

[Randal]

I know that this program doesn't actually concern you. You've figured out from DeSantis that this topic makes good culture-war fodder, and it even comes with a bonus CDC vilification.

If you truly cared about this kind of thing, what would really horrify you are red states' consent laws. Forget about teenagers discussing age-appropriate sexual development topics online with a professional therapist. You can go straight to marrying and fucking a 12-year-old if you want to.

How do red states deal with illegal grooming and child rape? By legalizing it.

[Estragon]

“The useful idiots don't care about anything other than what their handlers tell them. MSNBC puts it up on the screen and that is what they think until told to think about the next thing.”

Sounds strangely like Brett to me, excluding the msnbc part, of course. See also the myriad hot takes (spectacularly off base) on the Sussman trial, cribbed directly from the NYPost op-Ed page

[Randal]

Why would this time be any different?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, I got some bad early information. Like that never happens to anybody.

[bernard11]

Brett,

You actively seek out bad information. Maybe you should find some better sources.

By the way, did you notice that all your crap, that you must have repeated dozens of times, about how the Indiana doctor didn't report, etc., is all a bunch of BS, manufactured by Rokita, the lying IN AG.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, it does happen to others. Your problem, Brett, is that the moment you hear a claim that you want to be true, you adopt it as true.

I gave you one heuristic above: if your explanation for events depends on everyone on the other side being bad faith liars, you should assume your explanation is wrong.

A second useful heuristic: If you hear something important that you really want to be true, assume that it isn't until you have corroboration. Because one's desire for something to be true clouds one's ability to objectively analyze it, one needs to overcorrect and assume it to be false, until there's independent confirmation.