Abortion
POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 03:33
VIEWED: 22628
PAGE 24 of 28
Meanwhile, keep on posting your dumb shit man. Nobody cares.
Democrats are finished. You will never see them in power again in your lifetime.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Real Reason Why the GOP Is Passing Abortion Bans Without Exceptions for Rape
When did these exceptions start to fall out of favor among Republican lawmakers?
After Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2018, you see this explosion of laws without rape or incest exceptions. This generation of laws — the so-called “heartbeat bills” — ban abortion at six weeks, and most did not have rape or incest exceptions. That’s a direct response to the changing of the Supreme Court. Previously, Republican legislators had a sense that pushing too hard on unpopular things like abolishing rape or incest exceptions could make it harder to reverse Roe. But they read Kavanaugh’s confirmation as a sign that Roe would go anyway.
The GOP has taken a extreme hardline stance against reproductive rights.
The GOP became much more beholden to the anti-abortion movement and much less concerned about competition because of a combination of political polarization, gerrymandering, limits on access to the vote. These are essentially one-party states. Republican politicians aren’t worried these positions will be unpopular with voters because voters wouldn’t elect Democrats anyway.
In other words, anti-abortion advocates stop hiding the ball.
In about half the country, maybe more, the GOP can just say whatever they want. Even if voters don’t like it, voters won’t actually do anything about it.
When the 10-year-old child in Ohio was raped and forced across state lines, Jim Bopp defended the idea that she should carry pregnancy to term. Jim Bopp had previously been the leading figure of the cautious, pragmatic wing of the movement. He had flown down to Ohio to testify against a heartbeat bill.
More at https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/07/10-year-old-girl-rape-ohio
-abortion-incest-life-exceptions.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOL
Nobody cares about abortion dude.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ix, run a test. Stop going out. Stop eating. If anybody asks how you are, tell them you have never been better. Since Indiana is Trumptard country, 6ix, you will discover that nobody cares what happens to you, even your death, so long as you keep croaking out to them how great things are going for you while you slowly grow weaker and weaker from lack of food. I've heard the same story told over and over about East Texans who have given up the will to live. Nobody comes to save them. Nobody cares or even notices they died for months until their mail box is full, their grass isn't mowed, and they haven't paid their tax bills and the police search the house. That's how things go in Trumptard country. But at least the Trump-loving politicians are in total control of East Texas Trump country.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
LOL
Nobody cares about abortion dude.
6ix, start your weight-loss program! I have a warm and fuzzy feeling about how this ends for you -- in silence, slowly returning to the Earth the elements you were made from.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:6ix, run a test. Stop going out. Stop eating. If anybody asks how you are, tell them you have never been better. Since Indiana is Trumptard country, 6ix, you will discover that nobody cares what happens to you, even your death, so long as you keep croaking out to them how great things are going for you while you slowly grow weaker and weaker from lack of food. I've heard the same story told over and over about East Texans who have given up the will to live. Nobody comes to save them. Nobody cares or even notices they died for months until their mail box is full, their grass isn't mowed, and they haven't paid their tax bills and the police search the house. That's how things go in Trumptard country. But at least the Trump-loving politicians are in total control of East Texas Trump country.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
LOL
Nobody cares about abortion dude.
6ix, start your weight-loss program! I have a warm and fuzzy feeling about how this ends for you -- in silence, slowly returning to the Earth the elements you were made from.
Why on earth would I do any of that? I'm one of the only people in this country winning right now. Soon I get to buy all the used stuff that people bought on credit as they sell everything that isn't nailed down to buy food and put gas in their cars to get to work.
I'm also getting to witness the end of the Democratic Party right now.
You're losing more ground every day. Soon you will be irrelevant.
These are wonderful times. Keep that inflation coming Joe, and watch your entire Leftist agenda fall apart before your very eyes.
P.S. Unlike you toward me, I don't wish death on you, psycho. Please get some help before you hurt yourself.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There’s a Way to Appeal Dobbs.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court jettisoned the guarantee of abortion care, triggering a cataclysm of state bans—and it did so while trivializing and dismissing the profound consequences for pregnant people. But the Supreme Court need not have the final word on the case.
By centering the human rights of those marginalized by the Supreme Court, counsel for the pro-choice litigants can effectively appeal the Dobbs decision: Counsel can file a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the multilateral body tasked with promoting human rights across the Americas. Even if the U.S. does not ultimately implement the commission’s ruling, bringing the case to this body could prove to be a potent strategy in the fight for reproductive justice.
The commission is more than 60 years old and based in Washington D.C., although domestic awareness of its existence and functions is minimal (by contrast, the commission is a household name in many Latin American countries). One of the body’s main functions is to adjudicate cases brought against member countries that have violated human rights standards. In general, a case is only admissible once the violating country’s highest court has rendered a decision; indeed, the commission is designed to be a forum of last resort.
If counsel files a petition, assuming it meets all of the technical requirements, the commission will review the Supreme Court’s decision, as well as the actions (and non-actions) of other government organs. The U.S. will submit multiple rounds of briefing trying to defend the country’s rollback of abortion care. The commission will then issue its own decision, explaining the pertinent human rights dimensions and likely ordering an array of remedial measures.
Although the U.S. regularly participates in commission proceedings, administrations of every political stripe have posited that the country is not bound by the body’s rulings. In all probability, the government will not treat the commission’s decision as legal authority, and there is no enforcement mechanism to compel implementation.
There are at least three reasons why counsel should consider bringing the case anyway.
First, a decision by the commission would help reframe access to abortion care from an issue of purported originalist interpretation to one of basic human dignity. Human rights standards seek to codify our innate and inalienable dignity—which the government cannot take away. The panoply of human rights supporting access to abortion care include the right to equality and non-discrimination; the right to health; the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress; and the right to life (despite international lobbying efforts by anti-choice movements attempting to coopt this right). A ruling from the commission elucidating how the Dobbs decision violates these rights would provide normative validation that abortion bans are an affront to the inherent dignity of pregnant people. Such validation could help shore up resistance and serve as a bulwark against settling into the current reality as a “new normal.”
Second, the case could bolster recent commission jurisprudence and advocacy movements promoting access to abortion care throughout the Americas. While the international human rights system, on balance, has been explicit in supporting access to abortion care, Inter-American bodies have been relatively loath to confront the issue. Their circumspection tracks the refusal of several member countries to legalize abortion. In recent years, however, local advocacy efforts have brought about greater legalization in Mexico, Argentina and Colombia, among other countries. Progress at the national level has coincided with (and possibly emboldened) official statements and a case against El Salvador in which the commission squarely addressed governmental strictures on abortion. The commission explained that such strictures
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Republicans attack birth control, their next target
Preventive care such as birth control challenged in Texas lawsuit
The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who is known as a key strategist behind the Texas abortion law passed in 2021 that bans abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy. America First Legal Foundation, launched by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller, is also providing counsel.
"The plaintiffs seem perhaps extra motivated by the contraceptive requirement and coverage of services like PrEP," says Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O'Neill Institute at Georgetown University.
More at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/08/09/1115454627/preven
tive-care-such-as-birth-control-anti-hiv-medicine-challenged-in-texas-laws
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Indiana isn't Ireland, but it heading in that direction.
OB-GYN residents want to quit in Indiana after state's abortion law, harassment - August 15, 2022
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/15/1117605629/ob-gyn-residents-want-to-qui
t-in-indiana-after-states-abortion-law-harassment
The Irish Lesson by Fintan O’Toole
If the purpose of abortion bans is to actually reduce the rate at which women terminate pregnancies, the Irish experience shows how utterly ineffectual they are.
August 18, 2022 issue
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2022/08/18/the-irish-lesson-fintan-ot
oole/?lp_txn_id=1371474
A crowd celebrating the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution, which had banned abortion, Dublin Castle, May 2018
In 1973, soon after the US Supreme Court established a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, Charles E. Rice concluded that “the essential remedy to the abortion problem is a constitutional amendment.” Rice is an important figure in the intellectual history of the antiabortion movement that is now, with the recent overturning of Roe, enjoying its moment of triumph. He was a cofounder of the Conservative Party of New York State, formed by those who considered the Republican Party too liberal; one of his scholarly tracts is an attack on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a professor of constitutional law, he established Notre Dame University in Indiana as a redoubt of the conservative Catholic legal thinking whose influence most fully blossomed when Donald Trump appointed Rice’s colleague and associate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
But back in 1973 Rice despaired of the possibility that even a Republican-dominated Supreme Court would overturn Roe. He hoped instead for a constitutional amendment that would be “unequivocal” in outlawing both abortion and all forms of contraception that could be deemed to be “abortifacient”: “In order to prevent the licensing and legal distribution of abortifacients, the constitutional amendment on abortion must prohibit abortion at every stage beginning with the moment of conception.”
In the US, this was pure fantasy. The social and political conditions necessary for the passage of such a constitutional amendment did not exist. At the time, even evangelical Christians were reluctant to engage with the question of abortion, which they tended to see as a peculiarly (and suspiciously) Catholic obsession. But there was a place where Rice’s idea could be tried out: Ireland. In 1981 and 1982, when right-wing Irish Catholic activists were teasing out the wording of a proposed antiabortion amendment to the country’s constitution, Rice was the man whose advice and guidance they followed most closely. These campaigners sought and received Rice’s approval of the text that became, in 1983, the Eighth Amendment. For the Catholic conservatives who then seemed to be on the wrong side of US history, victory in Ireland was a harbinger of a possible American future. Now that they are, apparently, on the right side of American history, they might do well to remember that their Irish victory turned out to be pyrrhic.
These American conservatives were interested in Ireland partly because many of them (Rice included) were Irish Americans and partly because the old country offered the prospect of an easy win. As an example of preaching to the choir, sending conservative Catholic missionaries from the US to Ireland would be hard to better. Divorce was outlawed, not just by statute but in the text of the Irish constitution. The importation and sale of contraceptives was banned. The laws against “gross indecency” under which Oscar Wilde had been persecuted in England in 1895 were still in force in Ireland. Having or performing an abortion was punishable by life imprisonment.
Ireland was one place where the rot (as they saw it) of permissiveness had not yet set in. There was still, in the English-speaking world, one island of sanctity, one place where church and state were still so entwined that government could be relied on to enforce religious dogmas
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I already posted about this, stupid.
11 days ago.
August 6th: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=65197
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME