Texas's near-total abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  244 comments

By:   TheModerateVoic

Texas's near-total abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction
A Texas ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy took effect on Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court did not act on a request by abortion rights groups to block the law, which would prohibit the vast majority of abortions in the state. Abortion […]

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



September 1, 2021 by Guest VoiceLeave a Comment

Published by
Reuters

(Reuters) -A Texas ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy took effect on Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court did not act on a request by abortion rights groups to block the law, which would prohibit the vast majority of abortions in the state.

Abortion providers worked until almost the midnight deadline, when the court's inaction allowed the most restrictive ban in the country to be enforced while litigation continues in the groups' lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

The law amounts to a near-total ban on abortion procedures given that 85% to 90% of abortions occur after six weeks of pregnancy, and would likely force many clinics to close, the groups said.

Such a ban has never been permitted in any state since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, in 1973, they said.

At Whole Women's Health in Fort Worth, clinic staff worked up to midnight, serving 25 patients in the 2-1/2 hours before the deadline, said spokeswoman Jackie Dilworth.

The national group said its Texas locations, also including Austin and McKinney, remained open on Wednesday.

"We are providing all abortion medication and abortion procedures, but as long as the patient has no embryonic or fetal cardiac activity," Dilworth said. "Our doors are still open, and we're doing everything we can to come within the law but still provide abortion care to those who need us."

Planned Parenthood and other women's health providers, doctors and clergy members challenged the law in federal court in Austin in July, contending it violated the constitutional right to an abortion.

The law, signed on May 19, is unusual in that it gives private citizens the power to enforce it by enabling them to sue abortion providers and anyone who "aids or abets" an abortion after six weeks. Citizens who win such lawsuits would be entitled to at least $10,000.

Abortion providers say the law could lead to hundreds of costly lawsuits that would be logistically difficult to defend.

In a legal filing, Texas officials told the justices to reject the abortion providers' request, saying the law "may never be enforced against them by anyone."

"Texas Right to Life is thankful that the Texas Heartbeat Act is now in effect. We are now the first state ever to enforce a heartbeat law. We still await word from SCOTUS," spokeswoman Kimberlyn Schwartz said in a statement, using an acronym for Supreme Court of the United States.

'ALL-OUT EFFORT'

Democratic U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted the Texas move.

"This radical law is an all-out effort to erase the rights and protections of Roe v Wade," Pelosi wrote on Twitter. Using the legislation's number, she added, "we will fight SB8 and all immoral and dangerous attacks on women’s health and freedoms with all our strength."

A court could still put the ban on hold, and no court has yet ruled on its constitutionality, Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, wrote in a tweet.

"Despite what some will say, this isn't the 'end' of Roe," he wrote.

Texas is among a dozen mostly Republican-led states that have enacted "heartbeat" abortion bans, which outlaw the procedure once the rhythmic contracting of fetal cardiac tissue can be detected, often at six weeks - sometimes before a woman realizes she is pregnant.

Courts have blocked such bans.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
The law amounts to a near-total ban on abortion procedures given that 85% to 90% of abortions occur after six weeks of pregnancy, and would likely force many clinics to close, the groups said. Such a ban has never been permitted in any state since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, in 1973, they said.
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

This will make it to SCOTUS. This is the ruling the pro-birthers have been waiting for

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    2 weeks ago

I'm not sure if this means that the SCOTUS has ruled or is ignoring:

A Texas law prohibiting most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy went into effect on Wednesday after the Supreme Court failed to act on a request to block it, ushering in the most restrictive abortion law in the nation and prompting clinics in the state to turn away women seeking the procedure.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

SCOTUS has chosen not to rule on it, leaving the lower court's ruling intact.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

Thank you both

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
1.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    2 weeks ago

Pro-birthers are lifers when it comes to turning out for State elections.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
1.1.5  evilgenius  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
SCOTUS has chosen not to rule on it, leaving the lower court's ruling intact.

While the initial ruling is being appealed. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilgenius @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

Who hears it while it's being appealed?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
SCOTUS has chosen not to rule on it, leaving the lower court's ruling intact.

That is a little surprising, given pervious instances of such laws and legal precedent. But I predict this will eventually make its way to the SCOTUS.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.8  XXJefferson51  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    2 weeks ago

Let’s celebrate!  🥳🍾🎊🎉🎈

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
1.1.9  evilgenius  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.6    2 weeks ago
Who hears it while it's being appealed?

In this case it's being appealed in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme court CAN and HAS put laws on hold while such litigation is pending. It seems a little surprising they haven't on this case given the repercussions. It will make it to a full SCOTUS hearing eventually though given the nature of the language in the law. As I said below, if this stands there's no way a state like MI or NY wouldn't try to circumvent current gun control standards without trying something similar.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilgenius @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

Thanks

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
1.1.11  Hallux  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.8    2 weeks ago

Play with your own celibacy.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
1.1.12  Gsquared  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.8    2 weeks ago
Let’s celebrate 

... Texistan, the Republican-Taliban and burqas!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

That's the next Texas law coming up, now that they are allowing people who have had no gun training to walk around like 19th century cowboys with their guns, so the next law will be the "Keep the women barefoot and in the kitchen" one. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

If Texas would only elect more Democrats, why, we could return to the Democratic glory days of the 50's and 60's, huh?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.14    2 weeks ago

As far as I'm concerned, we were a lot better off in the early 1950s - wish I was back there. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
As far as I'm concerned, we were a lot better off in the early 1950s - wish I was back there. 

You should probably expect to receive a little backlash for that comment.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.17  CB   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

Barefood and pregnant is now Texas 'teed' up. The next law will put a woman back in the 'castle' of her 'king' with limited rights of ownership! And return to the 'old ways' of wife-beating her for her "insolence" to rejecting authority, brain-washing, and shaming.

 
 
 
MsMarple
Freshman Silent
1.1.18  MsMarple  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    2 weeks ago

Welcome to Gilead.

1. Abortions are not going to go away, DUH. Just like thousands of years before Christ, abortions will continue, and the mothers will die from rogue abortions because of uncontrolled bleeding, infections, and the unborn fetuses will not be born when the mother dies.

2. Those mothers who deliver will contribute to the pool of unwanted babies, who are forced to live with unfit mothers (it's never the fathers, is it?), children who will go on to become delinquent, will swell the Juvies in Texas in the next 15 years, then onto hard prisons 5 years later. At best if they are "adopted" - they'll be left alone to the horrors of foster/adoption care. This is where all of them serial killers and general nuts come from.

Because why?

Because Texas doesn't care about babies after they are born.

Because Texas doesn't care if those "sinful" mothers die. Because Texas think: "They totally deserve it. Shouldn't have been born in the first place", oh, wait....

Because Texas, and Evangelicals all over the country don't care about life (or else they'd vaccinate and wear masks during a plague), but what they care is:

Punishment. 
Punishment. 

Punishing those wayward sinful women who couldn't keep their legs shut.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.19  CB   replied to  MsMarple @1.1.18    2 weeks ago

Sadly, these "fights' were here in one form or another when we were born and alas, they look to be here (providing career paths) long after we're gone (to the big house or ground)!

NOTE: I don't know if it is the reference to Gilead or punishment that cause my thoughts to wonder down this path!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    2 weeks ago

Today's alleged conservatives, the gqp, thinks this helps them win votes.  Maybe, from their faux 'christian' rabid base but it alienates most everyone else.  Although I imagine those who still thinks it helps them with their ignorant supporters will fudge and waffle on the issue.  Or like in part of the article I included below, dodge the issue.  

Seeing danger, some in GOP leery of Texas abortion law

SARA BURNETT, SARAH RANKIN and LISA MASCARO

Fri, September 3, 2021, 12:05 AM

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Almost instantly after most abortions were banned in Texas, Democrats were decrying the new law as unconstitutional, an assault on women's health that must be challenged. But the reaction from many Republicans on the other side hasn't been nearly as emphatic.

Though some in the GOP are celebrating the moment as a long-sought win for the anti-abortion rights movement, others are minimizing the meaning of   the Supreme Court's Wednesday midnight decision   that allowed the bill to take effect. A few are even slamming the court and the law.

Or dodging.

“I’m pro-life,” said Republican Glenn Youngkin, a GOP candidate for governor in increasingly Democratic Virginia, where the only open governor's race in the nation is coming up in November. When pressed on the Texas law by a reporter, he quickly noted that he supports exceptions in cases of rape, incest and where the mother’s life is in danger — exceptions notably not included in the new law.

The mixed reactions illustrate the political risks for the GOP as their anti-abortion allies begin actually achieving goals they have long sought. Americans are hardly of one mind on the issue, and loudly defending the nation’s toughest curbs — in Virginia or political battlegrounds like Georgia, Arizona or Florida — in next year’s midterm elections won’t be hazard-free.

“It is going to be a very motivating issue for women who haven’t typically been single-issue pro-choice voters,” said Republican pollster Christine Matthews. That includes suburban women and independents in swing House districts and competitive governor’s races who in past elections didn’t believe Roe v. Wade was truly under threat, Matthews said.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.21  cjcold  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.8    2 weeks ago

Had a girlfriend who I impregnated and she had an abortion.

Had she told me I would have given her a ride.

Guess we didn't know each other that well.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

Leave it to Texas to come with such stupidity. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
1.2.1  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2    2 weeks ago

If the Republican Supreme Court allows this complete travesty to stand, it will undoubtedly be enacted in all the other Republican-Taliban states.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
If the Republican Supreme Court allows this complete travesty to stand, it will undoubtedly be enacted in all the other Republican-Taliban states.

It would contradict all previous precedents and establish a very dangerous precedent in its own right.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

No I wouldn’t.  It would create a precedent to reduce abortion without eliminating it.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
1.2.4  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.2    2 weeks ago
It would contradict all previous precedents and establish a very dangerous precedent in its own right.

That is true.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
No I wouldn’t.

Are you even familiar with the previous abortion precedents? 

It would create a precedent to reduce abortion without eliminating it.

That's a worded technicality. In reality, it would eliminate abortions, as women often do not realize they are pregnant until a fetal "heartbeat" is already present.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

In other Texas news today, you no longer need a license to openly carry a gun in Texas

www.kristv.com   /news/texas-news/new-texas-gun-law-no-license-or-training-required

New Texas gun law: No license or training required

Pat Simon 4-5 minutes   8/31/2021


New Texas gun law: No license or training required

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas — Six hundred and sixty-six new Texas laws will be enacted this Wednesday. One of the new laws lifts some key requirements on handgun owners.

Starting Wednesday, Texans who are 21 and older who are legally able to purchase a handgun will no longer need a license to carry it openly or concealed. No training is needed either.

Texas now becomes the 19 th   state to enact a permitless carry or constitutional carry law.

?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewscripps-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fc3%2F49%2F467fa02846d6a6d8723723def168%2Fdanny-quote.png

Pat Simon/Edited by Ryan Garza

Quote from Danny Garcia, a certified gun safety instructor at The Sharp Shooter.

"Constitutional carry is simply the state, acknowledging your personal right to carry a firearm, but they're requiring you to do all your own homework, know what the laws are - where you can carry where you can't. And the penalties for doing something wrong or making a mistake are pretty stiff. Much different than if you had a license to carry," explained Garcia.

The new permitless carry law does not require handgun owners to take classes.

Proficiency is the key in safely handling a gun. The new law has some concerned that it would deter owners from taking gun classes.

"And so it really goes back on to the person to understand how the firearm works, how to handle them safely, how to carry it safely and know the laws when you can't use deadly force in Texas law," stated Garcia.

There are some restrictions. These are places you cannot carry a firearm in Texas:

  • Schools
  • Bars
  • Sporting Events
  • Polling places
  • Airports
  • Courtrooms
  • Government offices
  • Jails and prisons
  • Hospitals
  • Federal property
  • National Park buildings
  • Private businesses that post signs

What kind of sign allows handguns inside a building?

Signs with penal codes 30.06 and 30.07 will still prohibit concealed and open carry at the locations they are posted. But starting Wednesday, 30.05 establishes a new option for property owners to allow licensed holders to carry but not unlicensed carriers.

The new law takes effect as a majority of Texas are showing their disapproval of it. 59 percent of those polled by the   University of Texas   are against the law.

The non-profit advocacy group,   Moms Demand Action , has come out against the law.

Erica Lawrence of Alice is a member of the group. Tragedy involving a gun hit very close to her.

"Yes, my husband's uncle died by firearm suicide recently," said Lawrence.

That’s one of the reasons why the group is promoting responsible gun safety and storage. Last weekend, the group invited local businesses to post signs prohibiting firearms in their establishments.

Enforcement of the new law could be another area of concern, or is it?

"It's not really gonna change the way we do our business, to be honest with you,” said Lieutenant Michael Pena, the PIO with the Corpus Christi Police Department.

Some law enforcement groups voiced concern about the “Constitutional Carry” law during the last legislative session. They feared it would put their safety at risk.

However, Corpus Christi police see it differently, more specifically, starting with the enactment of the concealed carry law.

"I think that the fear that happens when we first went to that law in 95 - it wasn't founded. And then when the open carry happens, you know people, I think most of us thought everybody's gonna walk around with a gun on their hip, and you just don't see it," said Pena.

Read the new law in its entirety here.
HB01927F   by   Ryan Garza   on Scribd

Check out other Texas laws that might affect you starting Sept. 1   here.

Copyright 2021 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.3.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3    2 weeks ago

Bottom line is that the more the executive and legislative branches of the federal government talk gun grabbing and restricting the 2A the more red states are going to double down on as few restrictions as possible and no limits on carry, magazine size, or nature of a semi automatic rifle.  We are going to make so many guns in private possession and so few restrictions at the state and even local areas of blue states that gun control will become impossible in any form of the existing constitutional republic.  To take our guns the grabbers will have to destroy everything else in the process. We will defend gun rights to that extent within the rules of the present American republic and constitution 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.2  CB   replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

Just do it. As with anything in this life one can only go so far before "pop" you come out the other side. I mean sooner are later the gun manufacturers will achieve the "perfect gun" - one that a fires itself "at will" without human assistance. Disturbingly idea!

More likely to occur is society's gun owners will realize that tripping over guns at every turn is a turn-off and not a turn-on. You can have too much of a good thing and that is when this love affair with steel will 'end.' Courtesy of the fools who killed their own 'market' with over-saturation.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
1.3.3  Gsquared  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

Comment 1.3.1 is the height of lunacy.  The real bottom line is that every Sandy Hook massacre, every child that gets slaughtered by a gun, is on the heads of the ammosexual gun lunatics who want to continue to flood our country with guns, with no limits on magazine size or the "nature" of automatic weapons and totally unrestricted gun use. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

"Bottom line is that the more the executive and legislative branches of the federal government talk gun grabbing and restricting the 2A the more red states are going to double down on as few restrictions as possible and no limits on carry, magazine size, or nature of a semi automatic rifle.  We are going to make so many guns in private possession and so few restrictions at the state and even local areas of blue states that gun control will become impossible in any form of the existing constitutional republic.  To take our guns the grabbers will have to destroy everything else in the process. We will defend gun rights to that extent within the rules of the present American republic and constitution"

So no limits on guns and semi-automatic rifles or ammo or magazine size BUT LIMITS ON A WOMAN'S CHOICES AND HER OWN BODY.  . .GOT IT LOUD AND CLEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.3.5  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.4    2 weeks ago

Sounds like screwed up priorities to me. And from a screwed up state too.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @1.3.3    2 weeks ago
The real bottom line is that every Sandy Hook massacre, every child that gets slaughtered by a gun, is on the heads of the ammosexual gun lunatics who want to continue to flood our country with guns, with no limits on magazine size or the "nature" of automatic weapons and totally unrestricted gun use. 

What bullshit. The only ones responsible are the ones who committed the crimes.

It is not fucking society's fault that some people can't control themselves and conduct their lives in a more humane way.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.4    2 weeks ago

Don't you get it? Their guns are more important than their wimmen folk. They can always replace the wimmen folk but a fine AR-15 is hard to replace

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Expert
1.3.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.7    2 weeks ago

That's why I like beer. Beer doesn't get mad if you drink another beer.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.3.8    2 weeks ago

Good one

 
 
 
MsMarple
Freshman Silent
1.3.10  MsMarple  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.6    2 weeks ago

It IS a society's fault if it puts mortal weapons in the hands of " people [who] can't control themselves and conduct their lives in a more humane way".
My cousin is a paranoid schizophrenic, terrified of her own mom and her own son. If she lived in TX, she'd be packing and running around wild. Because she is afraid of them, her own terrified mother and her own terrified son. 
If she did that, she'd be committed, because she can't stand trial for lack of mental capacity. But her mom and her baby would be dead.
And no, she's not adjudicated as a mentally ill person, although she should. And how many of them are out there in your very populous state of TX who are mentally ill but never been adjudicated? You just armed them all with guns.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.11  Texan1211  replied to  MsMarple @1.3.10    2 weeks ago

You seem to think that the new law changes who can buy a gun. It doesn't.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.3.12  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3    2 weeks ago

I carry a gun every day but have been trained since the early days of the NRA.

The NRA now annoys me and I am no longer a member.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.3.13  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MsMarple @1.3.10    2 weeks ago
If she lived in TX, she'd be packing and running around wild.

Dog-do.  Mental case or not, she'd be on death row.  That's just how we roll.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.11    2 weeks ago

You seem incapable of understanding the nuance of MsMarple's comment. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.3.14    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.3.14    2 weeks ago

What you think isn't the truth.

And what things "seem" to be to you aren't grounded in reality.

Come back to earth.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.17  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.16    2 weeks ago

Triggered? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.18  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.3.17    2 weeks ago

Nope.

just mildly amused.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.18    2 weeks ago

Yet not even a little amusing. Mores the pity. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.20  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.3.19    2 weeks ago

SOSDD

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.21  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.20    one week ago

Yet you persist. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

60415761_10219288236702519_6619703685960171520_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=koA18SYoBJAAX9Kh0cv&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=2d35b3e93c42d7199d69cc04478fc525&oe=61578CB2

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.1  CB   replied to  Tessylo @1.4    2 weeks ago

I agree. This is male dominance over women's bodies. And women and girls y'all essentially need to establish for yourselves what role males are going to have over your bodies! Either in whole or in part! Because I can see the handwriting on the wall for women: Total regression in red-states.  The 'cords' are being bind.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.4.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @1.4.1    2 weeks ago

It's time for the women of Texas to go on a strike. No nooky for the men folk

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.4.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.4.2    2 weeks ago

Lysistrata!

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
1.5  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

Your whining is noted.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.5.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  dennis smith @1.5    2 weeks ago

That is a quote from the seeded article Dennis , not my "whining".

Try to figure out which way is up, will you? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.5.2  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @1.5    2 weeks ago
Your whining is noted.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

241096757_10225545975986694_7452230036879343039_n.jpg

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.6.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.6    2 weeks ago

teaxass-abbott-abortion-mask-meme.jpg

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.6.2  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @1.6    2 weeks ago

My lady wears a halter top  and no panties 
Ya gotta love old hippie chicks..

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2  evilgenius    2 weeks ago

The slippery slope logic of how this law is written would make it easy for any liberal state to now craft legislation making it legal for any citizen to sue anyone purchasing a gun or pulling their car up to a bar...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
2.1  Gsquared  replied to  evilgenius @2    2 weeks ago

I hope that starts immediately.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @2    2 weeks ago

yeah, good luck with that fantasy.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    2 weeks ago
The law, signed on May 19, is unusual in that it gives private citizens the power to enforce it by enabling them to sue abortion providers and anyone who "aids or abets" an abortion after six weeks. Citizens who win such lawsuits would be entitled to at least $10,000.

Abortion providers say the law could lead to hundreds of costly lawsuits that would be logistically difficult to defend.

In a legal filing, Texas officials told the justices to reject the abortion providers' request, saying the law "may never be enforced against them by anyone."

(emphasis mine)

Oh, really? And how do these officials plan to ensure that never happens? A citizen could very easily make the case that the provider aided or abetted an abortion because how else was the abortion performed?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.1  Split Personality  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    2 weeks ago

The law is also being challenged in court by lawyers in Houston who say that they cannot have attorney client privilege intact if they are subject to being sued for a $10K bounty.

Unlike other so called "heartbeat bills" across the country, though, Texas' law was designed to not be enforced by the state. There are no criminal penalties for violating the ban on abortions after six weeks; instead, the law allows private citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman get an abortion.

SB 8 has broad criteria for who could be subject to these private lawsuits. And in practice, anyone — including someone who doesn't even know the person who got an abortion — could sue the doctor who provided the procedure, as well as the nurses and clinic staff.

Civil liability would also extend to people who provide logistical or emotional support to a woman who gets an abortion, including family members, clergy and rape crisis counselors. In addition, the law holds people liable if they merely "intend" to help a woman seeking an abortion after six weeks.

The Christian Taliban are issuing their own brand of Sharia in plain sight.  Separation of church & state is now a foreign concept in TX.

“Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion,” Abbott said in a bill signing ceremony, captured on videos posted on social media. The Legislature "worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill that I'm about to sign that ensures that the life of every unborn child who has a heartbeat will be saved from the ravages of abortion.”

...

Senate Bill 8 was a top priority for Republican lawmakers, nearly all of whom signed on as an author or sponsor of the measure.

Senate vote

384

Every Republican Senator and Legislator signed on as a sponsor to the Bill.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @3.1    2 weeks ago

This will create the biggest back log in Texas civil courts that they have ever seen

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.2  CB   replied to  Split Personality @3.1    2 weeks ago
Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion,” Abbott said in a bill signing ceremony, captured on videos posted on social media. The Legislature "worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill that I'm about to sign that ensures that the life of every unborn child who has a heartbeat will be saved from the ravages of abortion.”

What grandstanding. Our nation is not a beacon of life. Our nation is not a beacon of freedom. Those fools in charge in Texas are gun-laden authoritarians and are attempting to revolt against the federal government in-house. Time to get off the sidelines and realize conservatives are not playing around with liberals:

Women and girls is this what you want for yourselves ? Another lifetime of being pushed and shoved and dis-empowered?! Driven back to 'bare-foot and pregnant? Can wife-beating and "the man is king of his castle" be far behind? How about removal of rights and privileges of women to have a bank account separate from "the man"?
Well, this is what that looks like. Texas just told girls and women who want control over their privacy/bodies to 'go to hell' you control nothing.

So now what? Keep voting republican/conservative? Keep the "oppressor's" knee on your stomachs?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.3  CB   replied to  Split Personality @3.1    2 weeks ago

I hope they got the name of that democrat. What in the world is that (one) thinking? It would help to learn, but I won't take the time.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  CB @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr.,  [D]

A "notorious " aisle crosser who also sponsored bathroom laws in 2017 operates according to his devout Catholicism

not what might be best for his constituency. He is very anti abortion under ANY circumstances.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.5  CB   replied to  Split Personality @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

Another "dude" who thinks women and girls are the 'property' of the state of Texas. Duly noted. BTW, I won't 'hate' on him for crossing the aisle, but this time: He crossed the line. Women and girls of age voters of Texas should work to remove his sorry 'hiney' from office over this alone!

It is not like anybody is going to be holding him down and sticking something up in him! Hardly! It's time to act: Democrats stop the 'idle' talking! Republicans are eatin' your lunch!

 
 
 
MsMarple
Freshman Silent
3.2  MsMarple  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    2 weeks ago

Disgusting Republicans - lying and cheating and not complying with their own laws is their way. They just want to punish the women - because they should've kept their legs together.

Gilead. Welcome to Gilead. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsMarple @3.2    one week ago

Hello, MsMarple. It does feel like Texas should change their name to Gilead

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.1    one week ago

Or maybe to Texghanistan?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.2    one week ago

good one

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  JBB    2 weeks ago

Making abortions illegal does not stop terminations!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @4    2 weeks ago

But it does increase death and infertility

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @4    2 weeks ago

Indeed. If anything, it will only cause more problems. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2.1  JBB  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2    2 weeks ago

Undoubtedly...

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
4.2.2  TOM PA  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2    2 weeks ago

Let's see what it does to the courts, taxes, education and social services.  

Remember, "There are poor and always will be poor."  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  TOM PA @4.2.2    2 weeks ago
Remember, "There are poor and always will be poor."  

And essentially forcing women to have children, especially the economically disadvantaged ones, will keep them poor or increase economic struggles. This law will help perpetuate poverty or economic hardship. That also puts a child at a disadvantage too.

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
4.2.4  TOM PA  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.3    2 weeks ago

I don't know how to link an article.  There is an interesting report on the effects of anti-abortion laws in Romania at NPR today.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  TOM PA @4.2.4    2 weeks ago

If you want to post a seed, go to Publish at the top and then the drop down menu will list what type of discussion you want to seed. You can choose any group you belong to or do a "blog". If you have copied the URL of the article you want to show or discuss, go to Fetch Seed in the right hand corner under your user name. There will be a menu box for you to paste the URL in and then you should have nearly all your work done. Be sure to click on "imbed image" in the menu box.

There's a help discussion somewhere that shows you how to do this. Hopefully Perri or Tig will see this and help you out

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  TOM PA @4.2.4    2 weeks ago
I don't know how to link an article

Highlight and copy the URL of the article you want to link to. Then when you post here, highlight a word you want to associate with the article (i.e. "article" or "info here," ect.). After you highlight the word/phrase you want to associate with your articl, click the "Insert/edit link" tab (it looks like the chain link icon) and paste the article's URL in the blank URL field. Then click "save" and that's it. 

There is an interesting report on the effects of anti-abortion laws in Romania at NPR today.  

I am familiar with it. The children born as a result of Romania's abortion ban have been referred to as the "Lost Generation." Anti-abortion advocates only seem to concern themselves with abortion with tunnel vision. They often fail to consider the greater ramifications of what extensive abortion restrictions or bans would cause. Romania is one real world example of that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.5    2 weeks ago

Thanks Trout. You posted that as I was in the middle of replying. I guess I'm a slow typist, Lol

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.7    2 weeks ago

You done good.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.6    2 weeks ago

I saw a 60 minutes report on it. I think it was 60 Minutes. Anyway, it was a real tragedy. Many of those children ended up in run-down orphanages and were neglected and abused. I think the thing that hurt my heart the most was that none of these children were even shown the slightest affection. They were never held in any one's arms

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
4.2.10  TOM PA  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.5    2 weeks ago

thank you!  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  TOM PA @4.2.10    2 weeks ago

You're welcome! Can't wait to read your seed!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.9    2 weeks ago
I think the thing that hurt my heart the most was that none of these children were even shown the slightest affection. They were never held in any one's arms

Take it a step further and imagine what kind of adults they turn out to be.

You done good.

Thank you jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
4.2.13  TOM PA  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.6    2 weeks ago

Thank you!  I usually just post comments and just recently figured out how to post memes.  

It's my understanding that in this country (USA) there are over 100K individuals in orphanages and a few 100K in foster care.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  TOM PA @4.2.13    2 weeks ago
Thank you!  I usually just post comments and just recently figured out how to post memes.  

Perrie and TiG are very good at the technical stuff, if you have problems.

It's my understanding that in this country (USA) there are over 100K individuals in orphanages and a few 100K in foster care.

But some people think a woman should carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and give the child up for adoption, as if it's really that simple or realistic. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.15  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.5    2 weeks ago

and don't forget to publish in a friendly group. that way the serial deflectors and trolls will quickly disappear...

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
4.2.16  Duck Hawk  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.11    2 weeks ago

TY,I didn't know how to post a seed either.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.2.17  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Duck Hawk @4.2.16    2 weeks ago

Tom and Duck Hawk,

I hope this article helps you with "Fetch"

Also, there are many other topics about site functions that can be found here:

You might want to bookmark that addy. You can bookmark by clicking on either an avatar for a comment or by clicking this icon

found right under the body of an article

 

If you have any other questions you can write me on a private note which can be found in your dropdown menu under your name. When picking which Perrie to write (I have two accounts for function testing reasons), chose the one that says R.A. Hope this helps and glad to have you both with us!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.17    2 weeks ago

See? I told you Perrie would lead you to the right trough

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 weeks ago

I love how people are saying "my body my choice" when it comes to a life-saving vaccine, and yet are telling women "we own you" when it comes to a very personal choice. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5    2 weeks ago

It's spelled

h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
5.2  charger 383  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5    2 weeks ago

Seems to be a big contradiction 

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.3  Sunshine  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5    2 weeks ago
I love how people are saying "my body my choice" when it comes to a life-saving vaccine, and yet are telling women "we own you" when it comes to a very personal choice. 

I guess that can work both ways.  

Health care is a very personal choice.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.3.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @5.3    2 weeks ago

Sunshine,

I never said otherwise, which is why this is so disturbing and hypocritical. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.3.2  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @5.3    2 weeks ago
Health care is a very personal choice.

Unless of course you are female. Then it's regulated by the state. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.3.3  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @5.3.2    2 weeks ago
Unless of course you are female. Then it's regulated by the state. 

But only the reproductive system.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5    2 weeks ago
I love how people are saying "my body my choice" when it comes to a life-saving vaccine, and yet are telling women "we own you" when it comes to a very personal choice.

It's interesting how the reverse is also true.

I'm not sure anybody ever accused Americans of making sense.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.4.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4    2 weeks ago

How does a pregnancy affect your overall health? Pregnancy is not a communicable disease. You can't catch it from someone who coughs on you. While women do die during pregnancy, it won't kill you.

Equating pregnancy/abortion with vaxx mandates is not only unequivocal it's downright silly

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.4.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.4.1    2 weeks ago
How does a pregnancy affect your overall health? Pregnancy is not a communicable disease. You can't catch it from someone who coughs on you. While women do die during pregnancy, it won't kill you.
Equating pregnancy/abortion with vaxx mandates is not only unequivocal it's downright silly

They're much more equivalent than you like to admit. 

Both are based on religious views that ignore any contradictory math or science.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.2    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.4.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.2    2 weeks ago

Both are based on religious views that ignore any contradictory math or science.

 

Anti abortion is based on religious views and not a whole lot of science or math. Vaccines are nothing BUT science and math

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.4.5  Sunshine  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.2    2 weeks ago
They're much more equivalent than you like to admit. 

What "personal choice or personal health care" encompasses seems to be ever changing.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.4.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.4.4    2 weeks ago
Anti abortion is based on religious views and not a whole lot of science or math.

Yes.

Vaccines are nothing BUT science and math

Vaccines are, yes.  

But the arguments for mandates are explicitly contrary to the prevailing math and science. The CDC tells us that vaccinated people carry equal loads of the virus and are as likely to transmit it as unvaccinated people.  Hence the reiterated guidance for vaccinated people to wear masks indoors.

But that math and science are inconvenient to mandate proponents, so they pretend it does not exist.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.4.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.6    2 weeks ago

Do you not understand that this is a "novel" corona virus? That means they didn't see it before December 2019. They're still looking for answers on why this thing spreads like it does, why it mutates like it does, what more can be done to mitigate it?

I'm done with this subject with you, Jack. Carry on but I won't be answering any of your questions or responding to any of your comments

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.4.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.4.7    2 weeks ago
Do you not understand that this is a "novel" corona virus? That means they didn't see it before December 2019. They're still looking for answers on why this thing spreads like it does, why it mutates like it does, what more can be done to mitigate it?

So your argument here is "scientists (who have not recommended vaccine mandates) don't know what's happening so we should force everybody to get an injection". 

Riiiight.  Because that's not utterly batshit or anything.

But then nobody ever accused Americans of making sense.

I'm done with this subject with you, Jack. 

I had the audacity to bring science to a religious discussion.  My apologies.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.9  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.6    2 weeks ago
The CDC tells us that vaccinated people carry equal loads of the virus and are as likely to transmit it as unvaccinated people.  Hence the reiterated guidance for vaccinated people to wear masks indoors.

BTW, depending on who is doing the studies, plural, results are inconclusive, ever-changing (dynamic), and not unified yet on how much virus is in the noses of vaccinated people: Could be the vaccinated person's nose and throat mucous membranes kill x degree of load-carrying virus proliferation.

Therefore, you conclude what exactly, Jack? (HINT: It does not follow that you, me, or anyone else should compare local, state, or federal mandates which lean on the side of caution ("go slow") in a health pandemic of unknown size and scope, to set science of abortion or anti-abortion rhetoric.)

What say you?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.4.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.8    2 weeks ago

impasse

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
5.4.11  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.8    2 weeks ago

Since, "my body my choice" no longer applies in Texas, vaccinations should be mandatory. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.4.12  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @5.4.11    2 weeks ago
Since, "my body my choice" no longer applies in Texas, vaccinations should be mandatory. 

The door has certainly been opened.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.4.13  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.4.9    2 weeks ago
Therefore, you conclude what exactly, Jack? (HINT: It does not follow that you, me, or anyone else should compare local, state, or federal mandates which lean on the side of caution ("go slow") in a health pandemic of unknown size and scope, to set science of abortion or anti-abortion rhetoric.) What say you?

I'd have a number of points, some in agreement and some possibly not.

First, I'd point out that I didn't bring up the "my body, my choice" rhetoric, but simply pointed out that it is seen from both sides.  So whether or not the comparison should be made is something you should probably take up with Perrie.

I would also clearly define what we call "mandate".  Making vaccination a condition of employment or school attendance is not a mandate.  I consider a mandate to be a law that requires people to get vaccinated.

Given that definition, and given that our top scientists are still very unsure about many pieces of the Covid situation, and that new data is emerging all the time, I absolutely reject the idea that forcing people to get vaccinated under penalty of law is any sort of "lean on the side of caution".   Rather, it is simply terror-stricken panic about things we all know we don't fully understand.

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
5.4.14  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.12    2 weeks ago

The door has certainly been opened.

Thanks for agreeing Jack, seriously. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.15  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.13    2 weeks ago
First, I'd point out that I didn't bring up the "my body, my choice" rhetoric, but simply pointed out that it is seen from both sides.  So whether or not the comparison should be made is something you should probably take up with Perrie.

Jack_TX, my comment to you has little focus on your offer of an exchange with Perrie, and much to do with your reply to Trout Giggles @5.4.1.  Note: Trout G' did not mention choice in her comment.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.16  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.13    2 weeks ago
I would also clearly define what we call "mandate".  Making vaccination a condition of employment or school attendance is not a mandate.  I consider a mandate to be a law that requires people to get vaccinated.

However, governments are not the only authority in this country. Private Industry can AUTHORIZE (another meaning in the term: mandate) requirements of placement or retention independently-especially if government suspends itself from taking action. That is what is happening now. On that, others can not deny.

Your objection is recorded. Now stand aside please. And let the public and private sectors decide what is life-saving to the masses it/they are responsible and accountable too. Have you ever even gazed upon a coronavirus under a microscope? Epidemiologists do regularly! We might want to consider them trained, credentialed, and experienced.

What say you?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.4.17  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.4.16    2 weeks ago
However, governments are not the only authority in this country.

They are the only ones with the authority to impose a mandate.

Private Industry can AUTHORIZE (another meaning in the term: mandate) requirements of placement or retention independently-especially if government suspends itself from taking action. That is what is happening now. On that, others can not deny.

Employment requirements are not mandates.  Employment is a choice.  Any person can opt-out of any employment requirement at any time.

Your objection is recorded. Now stand aside please. And let the public and private sectors decide what is life-saving to the masses it/they are responsible and accountable too.y

You must have forgotten that I have as much right as you to voice an opinion.  Moreover, I actually provide data to support mine, whereas your data is conspicuously absent.

Have you ever even gazed upon a coronavirus under a microscope? Epidemiologists do regularly! We might want to consider them trained, credentialed, and experienced. What say you?

I say....again... that the CDC has not suggested a vaccine mandate. We might want to consider their trained, credentialed, and experienced guidance.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.18  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.17    2 weeks ago
Any person can opt-out of any employment requirement at any time.

And, government workers (exception: military service which carries administrative or punitive actions.) So just quit with this line of argument. BTW, Biden issued an executive order for federal employee vaccinations by a specific time frame. It is not a federal law (as you continue to press).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.19  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.17    2 weeks ago

And with that, we're done. . . unless you have something substantial to add. Do you?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.20  CB   replied to  CB @5.4.18    2 weeks ago

From McDonald's to Goldman Sachs, here are the companies mandating vaccines for all or some employees

Read it and 'weep' if you must.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.4.21  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.4.18    2 weeks ago
And, government workers (exception: military service which carries administrative or punitive actions.)

???

So just quit with this line of argument. BTW, Biden issued an executive order for federal employee vaccinations by a specific time frame. It is not a federal law (as you continue to press).

What the President has done is not a mandate.

A law or executive order requiring regular citizens to get vaccinated under penalty of law is a mandate.  That's not what Biden has done.

I'm not sure how this is unclear.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.4.22  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.13    2 weeks ago
I consider a mandate to be a law that requires people to get vaccinated.

So is it your posit that NONE of the state and federal 'mandates' for shut downs, masking, social distancing, testing and quarantining are legitimate? 

After all, NONE of them were or are 'laws'. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.4.23  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.6    2 weeks ago
But that math and science are inconvenient to mandate proponents, so they pretend it does not exist.

How so? 

The CDC tells us that vaccinated people carry equal loads of the virus and are as likely to transmit it as unvaccinated people.

THAT seems to support the proponents of vaccine mandates. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.4.24  Dulay  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.4.7    2 weeks ago
The CDC tells us that vaccinated people carry equal loads of the virus and are as likely to transmit it as unvaccinated people.

Even worse, the Delta variant is much more viralent, transmissable AND deadly than the original virus. The longer we allow it to spread, the more likely an even more deadly variant will emerge.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.4.25  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.21    2 weeks ago

I have no inkling what is confusing to you. Indeed, you are twisting this into uncomfortable lines. How about detangling some of this by doing the right thing and end this arguing for argument sake?!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.4.26  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @5.4.24    2 weeks ago
Even worse, the Delta variant is much more viralent, transmissable AND deadly than the original virus.

Not to mention current vaccines are not quite as effective in treating it.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.4.27  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @5.4.6    one week ago

Silence ensues. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
5.5  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5    2 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.6  XXJefferson51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5    2 weeks ago

That’s odd because those who are vaccine resistant are saying the same thing about the vax compellers as most of them are pro choice for abortion but not for them

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
5.6.1  dennis smith  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.6    2 weeks ago

When the SC makes a decision that some like, it is fine. When they make a decision that some disagree with, the bitching and whining starts.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
5.6.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.6    2 weeks ago

Pro-choice has never, ever been about pro-abortion.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.6.3  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.6    2 weeks ago

Wow Xx, I had no idea that there were people who are 'vaccine resistant'. Could you post a link to the medical study about that anomaly? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Expert
6  Just Jim NC TttH    2 weeks ago

It really doesn't make abortions illegal. One just has to have it prior to the seventh week. That's the rub IMHO. And the loophole that they can claim. "We didn't make it illegal at all. All we did was change the rules on when it needs to happen".

Technicalities suck sometimes.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6    2 weeks ago

Since you're not a woman I won't ask you a bunch of silly questions. I will just get right down to the nitty grityy.

I have been pregnant twice. Both healthy kids, thank you. My point is I didn't know I was pregnant until I was at least 6 weeks. I think the first one I was about 8 before it was confirmed. Women don't always know within 6 weeks if they are pregnant especially if it's their first pregnancy. The technicalities here suck big dildoes and don't even make a lot of sense. These people that pushed this thru know that many women will never be able to meet the dildo-sucking technicality. And to them I say...kiss my ass.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Expert
6.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    2 weeks ago

I couldn't agree with you more. Which I was doing with #6 above. I hope you didn't take it differently.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

Thanks for the clarification. It's 1330 here and almost time for my 1400 smoke break. Sometimes I need a little help

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.2  Gordy327  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6    2 weeks ago
One just has to have it prior to the seventh week. That's the rub IMHO. And the loophole that they can claim. "We didn't make it illegal at all. All we did was change the rules on when it needs to happen".

The SCOTUS has previously ruled that abortions are permitted up to the point of viability and restrictions cannot put an undue burden on the woman. Also, other states have passed similar "heartbeat" laws, which were summarily struck down by the courts. It's rather surprising this law was allowed to stand.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
6.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2    2 weeks ago

The whole Communist/Taliban/Sharia flavor of this just stinks.

The state says it is doing the Creators bidding but it won;t enforce the law.

It just allows people to snitch on each other for cash.

How feucking unamerican is that bs? (sic)

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Split Personality @6.2.1    2 weeks ago
The whole Communist/Taliban/Sharia flavor of this just stinks.

Abortion restrictions/bans does seem rather Talibanish, does it not? Not to sound overly dramatic, but It's essentially legislated terrorism against women.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.3  CB   replied to  Split Personality @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

The conservatives are demonstrating full-control over a state. It is something conservative talk has been 'braying' over for decades. All that is left to know at this point is they are making it plan that talk is cheap. Action is the thing.

What is Texas democrats going to do about as the opposing party, besides 'bray'? Inquiring minds want to know. For instance: Who will be the first, second, and third companies to start boycotting or exiting the Texas conservative-republican party and state?

Texas republicans/conservatives are not going to 'hear'. . . us otherwise!

STAND UP:FIGHT BACK!

TEXAS SOME REPUBLICANS GOTS TO GO!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.4  CB   replied to  Split Personality @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

Find something to snitch on the "snitchers"? Two can play that game. Start a new college industry in Texas, why don't cha?

Now, women and girls are you in trouble yet? Is it time for you to RECOVER ALL THAT YOUR ENEMIES ARE TAKING FROM YOU?!

1 Samuel 30:1-8
King James Version

30 

1 And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag, and burned it with fire;

And had taken the women captives, that were therein: they slew not any, either great or small, but carried them away, and went on their way.

So David and his men came to the city, and, behold, it was burned with fire; and their wives, and their sons, and their daughters, were taken captives.

Then David and the people that were with him lifted up their voice and wept, until they had no more power to weep.

And David's two wives were taken captives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite.

And David was greatly distressed; for the people spake of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved, every man for his sons and for his daughters: but David encouraged himself in the Lord his God.

And David said to Abiathar the priest, Ahimelech's son, I pray thee, bring me hither the ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the ephod to David.

And David enquired at the Lord, saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? shall I overtake them? And he answered him, Pursue: for thou shalt surely overtake them, and without fail recover all.

Go get your stuff back!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.3  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6    one week ago
One just has to have it prior to the seventh week.

Which is a violation of the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

I gave them up a little over two years ago now but I still crave the damned things,  probably always will.  I dream about smoking now!

I wish I didn't like the way they smell too.  

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Silent
7.1  GregTx  replied to  Tessylo @7    2 weeks ago

Good for you, stay strong. I wish I could but haven't been able to yet.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  GregTx @7.1    2 weeks ago

All of my kids were asthmatics and we both smoked.  One day after being chewed out by the pediatric NICU doctor

I looked at our stash of cigarettes in the kitchen and calculated how much it was worth in beer.

Smoke and animal dander were killing my kids.  The smokes went first, the pets were "re-assigned" to a farm

and everyone's health improved, the windows didn't need to be unyellowed anymore

and I could afford Heineken or whatever else tickled my fancy. 

jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

That was 36 years ago and I am hypersensitive to the odor but occasionally can still taste and remember, lol

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

I started smoking to hide the smell of weed. then I used them to stop smoking so much weed. now weed is legal and it's expected of the elderly like me to stumble around in a slightly disabled or medicinal stupor. I guess I should quit smoking cigarettes again...

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
8  pat wilson    2 weeks ago

I could be wrong but I'm hoping the SCOTUS is taking time to process this :

The law, signed on May 19, is unusual in that it gives private citizens the power to enforce it by enabling them to sue abortion providers and anyone who "aids or abets" an abortion after six weeks. Citizens who win such lawsuits would be entitled to at least $10,000.

Abortion providers say the law could lead to hundreds of costly lawsuits that would be logistically difficult to defend.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1  Gordy327  replied to  pat wilson @8    2 weeks ago

I'm surprised this law wasn't struck down. It's a no brainer that it is unconstitutional. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1    2 weeks ago

Are you forgetting who is on the Supreme Court ? 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
8.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

Your point - if you have one?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    2 weeks ago
Are you forgetting who is on the Supreme Court ? 

Not at all. But so far, the SCOTUS seems to be following established precedent. I also think this law will eventually reach the SCOTUS. So in the meantime, I remain cautiously optimistic that it will adhere to precedent.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @8.1.2    2 weeks ago

The Supreme Court could have put a stay on the implementation of this new law yesterday, and refused to act. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
8.1.5  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

Are you forgetting who was on the SC when liberals had the majority?

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
8.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  dennis smith @8.1.5    2 weeks ago

Are you forgetting who was on the SC when liberals had the majority?

Last time Liberals had  control of the SCOTUS I was 8 years old...I'm 53 now. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.7  CB   replied to  MrFrost @8.1.6    2 weeks ago

BESIDES that a judge with a political agenda is a fraud anyway!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2  Dulay  replied to  pat wilson @8    one week ago

The kicker is this:

(a) Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who: (1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter;(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter; or(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2).
So Texas just made THOUGHT legally actionable. 
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.2.1  CB   replied to  Dulay @8.2    one week ago

How is the Texas legislature and governor signing a bill into law; not a STATE action?  Where is the "confounding of the law" that SCOTUS sees here? That is, if the state of Texas did not "deputize" citizens (inducing with reward of cash) to act as agents against abortions, it would not be allowable in Texas or out.

What am I missing here?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.2  Dulay  replied to  CB @8.2.1    one week ago
How is the Texas legislature and governor signing a bill into law; not a STATE action? 

It's all about Texas lawmakers trying to avoid accountability and to tying the hands of women seeking medical care. 

I'd like to know how a STATE court Judge will accomplish denying participation in any civil case filed under this law. 

Where is the "confounding of the law" that SCOTUS sees here? That is, if the state of Texas did not "deputize" citizens (inducing with reward of cash) to act as agents against abortions, it would not be allowable in Texas or out. What am I missing here?

You're not missing anything. 

You have to give Texas credit, they figured out a sleight of hand that is on it's face utter bullshit but until it runs the gamut of litigation, it stands. I'm waiting to see the AG's press conference to read what the DOJ has written about it in their filing. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.2.3  CB   replied to  Dulay @8.2.2    one week ago

BREAKING NEWS! CNN: Just heard the U.S. AG making a compelling case for why the Justice Department will engage (sue) the state of Texas over its new abortion law. in court proceedings. Interestingly, CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, legal analyst, worries that the Justice Department may not have "significant" standing to bring the case. Hmm? I would think the case for federal programs and agencies being affected would establish the harm required. Among other valid legal concerns with "deputizing" citizens as agents absent a 'head.'

Additionally, Governor Abbott, republican - Texas, was asked if he thought he could prevail in a court challenge, and his remark was in effect: 'We expect to be challenged in court. Looking forward to it.'

I see republicans on shaky grounds, so what gives Abbott hope in this coming fight?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @8.2.3    one week ago
I see republicans on shaky grounds, so what gives Abbott hope in this coming fight?

He's just dim enough to think that his new law will overturn Roe vs Wade in the SCOTUS

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.2.5  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2.4    one week ago

Hmm.. . . dim. . . . (Laughs!)

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
9  Split Personality    2 weeks ago

So if I read this Abbott trash correctly, in theory if someone in TX donates to PPP and the list gets made public,

someone in Boise ID can sue all of the contributors and the contributors have to pay for their own defenses win or lose

and if they lose 

everyone has to pay the victor $10K?  It's a lottery scam.

Please tell me I'm wrong that that this fiasco is this fucked up.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10  XXJefferson51    2 weeks ago

5-4! 🥳🍾🎊🎉

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
10.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10    2 weeks ago

Your celebration will bring the death and infertility of countless women. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
10.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @10    2 weeks ago

So you would celebrate women losing their constitutional rights? Interesting.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11  JBB    2 weeks ago

Shouldn't we be airlifting the women out of Texas?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @11    2 weeks ago

Maybe Texas should be renamed fron "The Lone Star State" to the "Taliban state." 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.1  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @11.1    2 weeks ago

Texas republicans/conservatives have found their 'voice'! The question is this: Do we believe them now when they 'speak' with a unified voice? Without a doubt, this is who they are. They will trample over rights and privileges of their perceived enemies and ignore the screams that well up from below.

Truth in Texas is being gobbled up by power-plays and lies. Here is truth: Texas republicans/conservatives are letting us see them without a veneer or sheen to distract. They hope you like 'the beast' beneath and want it to lead. This is what raw republican leadership looks like. They will steamroll right over liberals!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.1.2  JBB  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @11.1.2    2 weeks ago

That pretty much sums it up.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  CB @11.1.1    2 weeks ago

As the old saying goes, "everything is bigger in Texas." Apparently, so is the legislative (and possibly general) stupidity I'm Texas. This draconian anti abortion law is proof of that.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @11.1.2    2 weeks ago

I was just thinking that some people want to turn back the clock, some would like to turn back the month, or even the year, but I guess in Texas they want to turn back the century.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.1.5    2 weeks ago
I was just thinking that some people want to turn back the clock, some would like to turn back the month, or even the year, but I guess in Texas they want to turn back the century.

I never understood the mentality that makes some people prefer to be regressive, especially socially. It's as if they're afraid of progress and would prefer to remain stagnant at a particular point in time.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.6    2 weeks ago

It's surprising that they're not living in log cabins with no utilities, drinking water from a dug well, chopping firewood for their heat and cooking, using candles for light, an outhouse, and a horse and buggy for transportation.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.1.7    2 weeks ago

It's surprising that they seem to want to go back to that era.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.9  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.8    2 weeks ago

What is being attempted to reestablished is a time when conservative power and influence in this country was considered "all and all."  All other groups were small, impotent, and groups: outcast. If you have your power and influence and you use it wisely, they can be halted, stalled, and made to move forward. . . .

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11.1.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.8    one week ago

Now they can without a permit wear their guns openly on their hips pretending like children to be big brave cowboys. LOL

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12  CB     2 weeks ago

It is clear to me a woman or girl in Texas has no rights or privileges that a conservative man ought to respect.

It won't be long before the other shoe falls there (if this is allowed to continue): A woman or girl living in (puritan) Texas found to have attempted an abortion or actually receiving an abortion for any reason (including life of the mother) from another state will be banned reentry into the (authoritarian) state.

Texas authority must be all and all!

Really girls and women are you all not outraged yet? Are republican women that 'whipped' by their own 'boys' born of their wombs (and not the other way around)?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
12.1  Gordy327  replied to  CB @12    2 weeks ago

It's like I said in 11. 1.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

I see a strong chance that this backfires on the GOP in the '22 midterms. 

Although it may seem like a state of Texas issue, abortion is a national issue. And the Democrats would be wise to make it a big issue for the next year and a half. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
13.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @13    2 weeks ago

But the Democrats need to stay on message. They don't need to get bogged down in technical issues. Just go with Women's Bodies, Their Choice and fuck all the Neanderthals who want to keep women shackled

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1    2 weeks ago

The governor of South Dakota announced today that she has ordered the person on her staff who deals with abortion issues to research how South Dakota can create a law similar or even more restrictive than Texas. She says the Supreme Court has given her state and other states a green light. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1    2 weeks ago

I think we will shortly see a renewed effort by Democrats to register women (and men) to vote so they can use their votes across the country to send a message about abortion restrictions. 

This may well backfire on the GOP at the ballot box. 

I think there is still a majority of voters who want abortion to remain legal. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
13.1.3  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
13.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @13.1.3    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
13.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @13.1.3    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
13.1.6  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1.5    2 weeks ago

Having those 'glorious' feelings of being objectified coming on. . .

  22110075102.jpg

again?

You've come a long way, baby! Now get in the 'ride' - you're going back to where you started!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
13.1.7  CB   replied to  CB @13.1.3    2 weeks ago

The original 1959 cover of Jem magazine: "How to make your wife DO WHAT YOU WANT HER TO!"

91tIqNKC7JL.jpg

Girl, woman you were little more than a sex object or "progeny-making machine" while he was the dick that kept on giving!

This is how some conservatives see you (generally) when the truth is exposed to the light of day! When you birth "him" more children he will pick between the 'lot' of them and set them against each other for 'sport' and of course, when the numbers stack up in the country - nothing like starting a war somewhere else to get rid of the surplus population!

Of course, as a Christian, some conservatives just see a girl or woman as a "duty."  (Not all, but most.)

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
14  pat wilson    2 weeks ago

Eventually most abortions will be medical through mail order.

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
14.1  TOM PA  replied to  pat wilson @14    2 weeks ago

Privacy and personal bodily integrity.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
14.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TOM PA @14.1    2 weeks ago
Privacy and personal bodily integrity.  

Not if you're a female of child-bearing age in Texas.

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
14.1.2  TOM PA  replied to  Gordy327 @14.1.1    2 weeks ago

"...personal bodily integrity..."  

The "Great State Of Texas" claims that the state not the woman owns a part of her body!  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
14.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  TOM PA @14.1.2    2 weeks ago

That is essentially what this law is saying.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
14.2  Gordy327  replied to  pat wilson @14    2 weeks ago
Eventually most abortions will be medical through mail order.

Kind of like a do-it-yourself home abortion kit. Although, falling down the stairs might be cheaper.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

I wonder how many GOP senators would vote against Roe v Wade (basic constitutional right to an abortion)  on an up or down vote.  There is talk of this issue going to Congress with intention of passing legislation protecting Roe v Wade.  That would prove interesting. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @15    2 weeks ago
  There is talk of this issue going to Congress with intention of passing legislation protecting Roe v Wade. 

If Congress has the power to "protect" Roe, that means Congress has the power to ban abortion nationally. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
15.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1    2 weeks ago

Congress can try to pass a federal law banning abortions. But it would be blatantly unconstitutional and summarily struck down as such.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1.1    2 weeks ago

But it would be blatantly unconstitutional and summarily struck down as such.

Lol... then a law protecting it would be too. That's the point. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
15.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.2    2 weeks ago

Do you mean laws protecting abortion would be unconstitutional.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1.3    2 weeks ago
o you mean laws protecting abortion would be unconstitutional.

In a post Roe world, laws protecting abortion would be unconstitutional   if a federal law banning abortion is.  Either Congress has the power to regulate abortion nationally, or it doesn't. If you believe Congress can "protect" abortion nationally , then you must also believe it has the power to ban abortion nationally. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.1.5  CB   replied to  Gordy327 @15.1.3    2 weeks ago

What Sean likely means (and I am no conservative 'whisperer') is any law that is not constitutionally established by contract with the qualified number of states and legislatures - can and will be used as 'combat' fodder pushed to courts or future states and federal legislatures in a tug of wills.

Okay Sean, Right? Or, where am I wrong?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.2    2 weeks ago

Constitutionality is whatever five Supreme Court Justices say it is. That is why we have Heller. 

If five Supreme Court justices said this new Texas law is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. But these five are willing to ban abortion piecemeal now, but maybe completely later. 

This will probably end up a year or two down the line with massive street marches and protests, and big GOP losses in swing states.  There is no majority for banning abortion. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @15.1.5    2 weeks ago

t Sean likely means (and I am no conservative 'whisperer') is any law that is not constitutionally established by contract with the qualified number of states and legislatu

Nothing so elaborate. If Roe is overturned, Congress either has the power to regulate abortion nationally, or it doesn't. If it does, it can either ban abortion totally, make it legal up until birth, or legislate a compromise anywhere in-between. It's wrong to believe Congress only has the power to protect abortion. It's really a question about Congress's power under the commerce clause, since there's nothing in the Constitution addressing  abortion specifically, as we all know.

If Congress lacks the power to legislate a national abortion law, then the issue will be decided in state legislatures, and possibly in the state courts of any states that have made abortion a  state Constitutional  right. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.6    2 weeks ago
That is why we have Heller. 

We have Heller because the justices paid attention to the text of the document and didn't act as a super legislature imposing their own policy preferences.   

There is no majority for banning abortion.

It's a political question and should be decided politically... But here's not a majority of single issue abortion voters either.  The voters who feel that strongly on imposing their moral vision on the rest of the country already vote democratic anyway.  If Roe had been correctly decided this would have avoided all this decades ago.  The majority od states probably would have passed european style laws that avoid the extremes of the current abortion on demand Democratic party and the extreme ban all abortions on the other side. But since the Court took a political issue and tried to impose the policy preferences of a few lawyers, we've had the issue poison our democracy and corrupt our judiciary for 50 years. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.8    2 weeks ago
We have Heller because the justices paid attention to the text of the document

Thats your opinion. 

Heller was decided on strict ideological lines. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.1.10  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.7    2 weeks ago
Congress either has the power to regulate abortion nationally, or it doesn't. If it does, it can either ban abortion totally, make it legal up until birth, or legislate a compromise anywhere in-between. It's wrong to believe Congress only has the power to protect abortion. It's really a question about Congress's power under the commerce clause, since there's nothing in the Constitution addressing  abortion specifically, as we all know.

The only true activity congress can take to pass abortion legislature that will stick and stand the test of time is a constitutional amendment: For or Against. It is for this reason, that earlier courts were thought the more expeditious way to go and so it occurred for many, many, decades. But, now here we are again with states continuing to pursue a 'flip-flop' in the court-induced decision that has stood this long.

Assuming that congress will never be able to get red-states to compromise with blue states on the issue-thus nullifying abortion.

Clever. But then, what will be the backlash? Our citizen women have tasted freedom to live without the oppressive hand of the 'state' making "capacity" demands of their bodies. Will they be fools to accept state-driven authority once more? Will Texas revolt from the stark reality laid bare by republicans/conservatives for all to see.

We shall see. What this space. Nice 'exposure' by the way conservatives/republicans. Thank you for drawing very distinct lines around yourselves!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.1.11  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.8    2 weeks ago

That's so delusional. But I won't argue with you. Believe it (if you must).

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.9    2 weeks ago
eller was decided on strict ideological lines. 

It sure was. The majority  applied the Constitution as written, and the ideologues in the minority substituted their  own beliefs.  T

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.13  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.12    2 weeks ago

lol.    I doubt Justice Stevens would agree with you. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.1.14  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.13    2 weeks ago

Scanning Sean's comment on the issue, I think he is right. You see there is a reason conservatives want to consider the Constitution a static document: Because they use it to say let's "get" back to original intent. Thus, ignoring any and all support for a "living" changeable attitude without constitutional amendment protocols (which they have no intentions as a group of states of complying with passing). Courts are/were the 'end-run' around the amendment process.

Now you can see why McConnell was so focused on filling the courts with conservative ideologues; nullification of the court as a mechanism for expeditious change and throwing matters back to the legislatures (state/federal), and well - Voila! Conservatively, red states don't have to 'contract' to give those. . . Others including liberals. . . a damn thing!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
15.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.8    2 weeks ago
The majority od states probably would have passed european style laws that avoid the extremes of the current abortion on demand Democratic party and the extreme ban all abortions on the other side.

The vast majority of countries in the EU have abortion on demand in the first trimester and most allow abortion through the second trimester. 

But since the Court took a political issue and tried to impose the policy preferences of a few lawyers, we've had the issue poison our democracy and corrupt our judiciary for 50 years.

The bodily autonomy of the majority of the population shouldn't be relegated to a 'political issue' or 'policy preferences'. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.16  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  CB @15.1.14    2 weeks ago

Conservatives act like "originalism" used as a philosophy to decide Supreme Court cases is something ordained from on high. Thats because they are conservatives and want to stay in the 18th century. 

There is no "ordained" approach to deciding cases. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @15.1.14    2 weeks ago
Thus, ignoring any and all support for a "living" changeable attitude without constitutional amendment protocols

A "living" document is meaningless

nullification of the court as a mechanism for expeditious change and throwing matters back to the legislatures (state/federal), and well- Yoila! Conservatives don't have to give those. . . Others. . . a damn thing!

Yes, allowing people to decide the laws that govern them is terrible!  How unAmerican!   Much better that unelected lawyers decide what's good for them, eh? 

  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.16    2 weeks ago
ke "originalism" used as a philosophy to decide Supreme Court cases is something ordained from on hig

It's not "originalism" it's textualism. And yes, the principle that laws should mean what they say is one of the principles of any republic.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.19  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.18    2 weeks ago

John Paul Stevens, a Supreme Court Justice, looked at the text of the second amendment and reached the conclusion that the text does not justify individual ownership of guns in homes. 

His problem wasn't the text, it was that the other side had five and his side had four votes. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.1.20  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.16    2 weeks ago

They are using originalism and static doctrine of the Constitution to stymie change. That is, 'forcing' matters back through the states or legislative process where they intend to not compromise with liberals to advance what they consider to be a CONSERVATIVE document of 19th century (putting "conservatives" at greater advantage).

This is why when, during the Obama years, the phrase, "the constitution is a living document." was invoked, conservatives pushed back with all their might (through Scalia too). It is essential to conservatives/conservatism that the constitutional document not change or advance from its original conservative-leaning origination. 

They, conservatives and some conservatives, are not fools! But they will take advantage of letting us think they are if they can get their way doing so!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @15.1.15    2 weeks ago
ast majority of countries in the EU have abortio

The vast majority of EU countries have stricter abortion regimes than we do. We are grouped with the China's and  North Koreas of the world. 

he bodily autonomy of the majority of the population shouldn't be relegated to a 'political issue' or 'policy preferences'.

Are you familiar with our country? Why don't you look at the statute book and get back to me.

If you want to create a right to take human life before birth pass an amendment.  That's the legal way to do it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
15.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.17    2 weeks ago
Yes, allowing people to decide the laws that govern them is terrible!  How unAmerican!   Much better that unelected lawyers decide what's good for them, eh? 

The 'people' have already decided the laws that govern them and they include 'unelected lawyers', i. e. JUDGES to rule on their scope and constitutionality. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
15.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.21    2 weeks ago
The vast majority of EU countries have stricter abortion regimes than we do. We are grouped with the China's and  North Koreas of the world. 

They DO have abortion on demand in the first trimester, don't they Sean? 

Are you familiar with our country?

Quite. 

Why don't you look at the statute book and get back to me.

Which statute in particular Sean? 

If you want to create a right to take human life before birth pass an amendment. That's the legal way to do it.

If you want to create a right to force a woman to give birth against her will, pass an amendment. That's the legal way to do it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
15.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.18    2 weeks ago
It's not "originalism" it's textualism.

Please explain the difference Sean? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
15.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.4    2 weeks ago
In a post Roe world,

I imagine a post Roe world would look a lot like a pre Roe world.

laws protecting abortion would be unconstitutional   if a federal law banning abortion is. 

A constitutional Amendment would need to be passed to ban abortion on a national level.

Either Congress has the power to regulate abortion nationally, or it doesn't. If you believe Congress can "protect" abortion nationally , then you must also believe it has the power to ban abortion nationally. 

It depends on what kind of laws Congress passes. They must pass constitutional muster. As abortion is currently a constitutionally recognized and protected right, laws protecting abortion would likely be constitutional, whereas laws prohibiting abortions would not.

If Roe is overturned, Congress either has the power to regulate abortion nationally, or it doesn't.

If Roe were overturned (never mind the implications of such an event), abortion rights would revert to the states.

It's really a question about Congress's power under the commerce clause, since there's nothing in the Constitution addressing  abortion specifically, as we all know.

That's why abortion would belong to the states.

It's a political question and should be decided politically..

No, it is a judicial and constitutional matter involving individual rights and autonomy.

If Roe had been correctly decided this would have avoided all this decades ago.

It was correctly decided.

But since the Court took a political issue and tried to impose the policy preferences of a few lawyers, we've had the issue poison our democracy and corrupt our judiciary for 50 years

The court took an issue dealing with individual rights via due process and utilized the constitution to decide the matter. It's only been reaffirmed over the years too.

Yes, allowing people to decide the laws that govern them is terrible!  How unAmerican! 

Yes, it is terrible because people are idiots and laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are often based on emotion and irrationality. But people can propose laws to be passed. Fortunately, the Constitution is a great equalizer and the courts decide if laws meet constitutional standards or not. That's how the system is set up.

Much better that unelected lawyers decide what's good for them, eh? 

Better a lawyer than the legally ignorant average John Q. Public decide on legal matters.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1.25    2 weeks ago

a

If Roe were overturned (never mind the implications of such an event), abortion rights would revert to the states.

Some  liberals believe otherwise. Since you don't, you should probably tell Congress not to bother with performative laws to "save abortion"

hat's why abortion would belong to the states

I agree. Some don't. 

o, it is a judicial and constitutional matter involving individual rights and autonomy.

If Roe is overturned, it's not. 

s, it is terrible because people are idiots

I get it. You hate representative democracy. I happen to believe the people deserve to decide the laws that govern them. You don't.   Since I don't believe a handful of unelected justices should force their morals upon a country of diverse people, we will disagree. 

r a lawyer than the legally ignorant average John Q. Public decide on legal matters

A "legal matter" is interpreting the text of a law passed by the people.. You want to abuse the the legal process to impose your moral beliefs on the country. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
15.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.26    2 weeks ago
If Roe is overturned, it's not. 

How the fuck does THAT suddenly happen Sean? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
15.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.26    2 weeks ago
Some  liberals believe otherwise. Since you don't, you should probably tell Congress not to bother with performative laws to "save abortion"

I don't speak for liberals nor am I a liberal. It's just a simple fact. The SCOTUS overturning Roe would not make abortions illegal by default. It means the states can regulate abortion and associated laws as they see fit, just as they were doing pre Roe.

If Roe is overturned, it's not

No, it still is. The base argument remains the same.

I get it. You hate representative democracy.

You presume too much. And we are a Constitutional Republic.

I happen to believe the people deserve to decide the laws that govern them. You don't.   

I don't go by beliefs. I already said there is a due process for people to get laws enacted, as is there a checks and balances as to the laws itself. 

Since I don't believe a handful of unelected justices should force their morals upon a country of diverse people, we will disagree.

Morality is subjective and should not be legislated. That's why we have a Constitution which applies to all people equally. Ideally, a Judge or justice should objectively review and decide a case based on the Constitution. But no doubt some might let emotion sway their opinions.

A "legal matter" is interpreting the text of a law passed by the people.. You want to abuse the the legal process to impose your moral beliefs on the country. 

A strawman argument. Interpretation of laws is a function and responsibility of the courts.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.1.29  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.17    2 weeks ago

Because some conservatives make funkily stupid lawmakers. You have not noticed, have you? Wonder why. And before you again try to lecture me about the 'curious' nature of people-pleasing laws and policies, maybe first stand for diversity and inclusion since we have all these groups, tribes, and "testimonies" of how generous, peace-loving, and inviting we are as one nation. . . under God. Though, God would be hard-pressed to agree with the "under" right about now.

Finally, "unelected" officials is a stupid comeback and I would advise you not to use it with me. Why? Because the founding fathers. . . you know the 'brains' behind the constitution in their much lauded wisdom and wise-ness placed a third branch of governance over the people to vouch-safe what the other TWO branches might at times foolhardedly squander. And thus, the people perish.

Bring it on, Sean.

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Silent
15.2  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @15    2 weeks ago

Which is what should happen.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  GregTx @15.2    2 weeks ago
Which is what should happen.

What should happen is we honor the  principles of federalism and let people choose the laws they want to live under. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
15.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.2.1    2 weeks ago

People can certainly propose bills to be passed and made into law. But laws passed must also pass constitutional muster. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.2    2 weeks ago
But laws passed must also pass constitutional muster. 

I agree. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Silent
15.2.4  GregTx  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.2.1    2 weeks ago

Which is what should happen if Congress enacts law regarding abortion.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.2.5  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @15.2.1    2 weeks ago

HOWEVER, we have all experienced that locales and states can make dumb, injurious laws based on small majority points of view. The larger issue is our country is not a multiplicity of individual states. We are a congealed union. Interconnected. Therefore, some features of our society must transcend blue-state/red state politics for which we, some of us anyway, like to indulge "dogged" passions.

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
16  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
16.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MrFrost @16    2 weeks ago

Yep, time to invest in wire hanger manufacturers and Texas funeral homes. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
17  mocowgirl    2 weeks ago

Something I just stumbled across that might have an impact on the legality of the Texas law that relegates women to broodmare status...

Why Satanists may be the last hope to take down Texas's abortion bill | Fortune

The state of Texas,  with approval from the U.S. Supreme Court , instituted the  most draconian set of anti-abortion laws  in the last 50 years this Tuesday. While pro-choice advocates scramble to save what’s left of Roe v. Wade, their salvation may come from an unexpected place: The Satanic Temple. 

The nontheistic religious group, based out of Salem, Massachusetts, has filed a letter with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration arguing that their members should be allowed to access abortion pills without regulatory action. The temple is attempting to use its status as a religious organization to claim its right to abortion as a faith-based right. 

The group argues that they should have access to the abortion pills Misoprostol and Mifepristone for religious use through the The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which was created to allow Native Americans access to peyote for religious rituals. Under these rules, the Temple is arguing that they should be granted those same rights to use abortifacients for their own religious purposes. 

“I am sure Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton—who famously spends a good deal of his time composing press releases about Religious Liberty issues in other states—will be proud to see that Texas’s robust Religious Liberty laws, which he so vociferously champions, will prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted by superfluous government restrictions meant only to shame and harass those seeking an abortion," wrote Satanic Temple spokesperson, Lucien Greaves in a statement. 

Satanists hold bodily autonomy and science sacrosanct, he said, and abortion “rituals” are an important part of those beliefs. “The battle for abortion rights is largely a battle of competing religious viewpoints, and our viewpoint that the nonviable fetus is part of the impregnated host is fortunately protected under Religous Liberty laws,” he added. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
17.1  CB   replied to  mocowgirl @17    2 weeks ago

It should not have to come to this 'quarter' of the spectrum for the positioning needed. However, you 'take' (as much of) what you need to get the job done! I would prefer if women and girls, Blacks and other minorities, SECULAR HUMANISTS, LIBERAL CHRISTIANS, other like-mindedness people, and LGBTQ as people just TAKE the meddlesome, vexation that is some GOPers/Conservatives down once and for all time!

We are growing old and will die with a lifetime of annoyances and hindrances from the 'usual suspects' to look back over. Taking down some GOPers/Conservatives once and for all will do the future citizens a great service!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
17.2  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @17    2 weeks ago
their salvation may come from an unexpected place: The Satanic Temple. 

God bless those Satanists. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

Satanists hold bodily autonomy and science sacrosanct

Apparently, anti-abortionists and the Texas Legislature do not.

“The battle for abortion rights is largely a battle of competing religious viewpoints

Indeed. I have yet to see a rational, non-religious basis for an argument opposing abortion. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
17.2.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Gordy327 @17.2    2 weeks ago
I have yet to see a rational, non-religious basis for an argument opposing abortion.

As well as a rational religious basis for an argument opposing abortion.  Churches, throughout the history of the Christian religion, pretty much ignored abortion.  

Churches were not the driving force to banning abortion in the US - doctors were.  Churches did not really take a stance on abortion until it became a political issue in the US a little over a century ago.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
17.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @17.2.1    2 weeks ago
rational religious basis

There's a contradiction in terms.

Churches were not the driving force to banning abortion in the US - doctors were.  Churches did not really take a stance on abortion until it became a political issue in the US a little over a century ago.

Indeed.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
18  Hal A. Lujah    2 weeks ago

384

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
18.1  Gordy327  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @18    2 weeks ago

Ok, that is awesome. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Tessylo
Paula Bartholomew
Snuffy
Ronin2
GregTx
JohnRussell
CB
JBB
Gazoo
Greg Jones

Sean Treacy


56 visitors