Abortion
POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 03:33
VIEWED: 22628
PAGE 22 of 28
Quote:Sending $40 billion or $40 trillion or $40 bazillion would NOT decrease what goes to other projects. Congress has infinite dollars. Republicans pretend otherwise because they want to spend nothing and pretending there is only a limited amount of money is the best way to trick the ignorant into believing nothing can be done.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh. BTW... have you explained to the blacks and Latinos how sending $40 Billion to Ukraine was in their best interests yet?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-signs-40-billion-dollars-ukraine-ai
d-south-korea-trip/
Tick Tock
As a practical note, the wealthy underpay their income taxes by $1 trillion per year. That would be easy money to collect, but Republicans don't want it collected.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-treasury-irs/irs-chief-says-1-t
rillion-in-taxes-goes-uncollected-every-year-idUSKBN2C0255
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:Sending $40 billion or $40 trillion or $40 bazillion would NOT decrease what goes to other projects. Congress has infinite dollars.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh. BTW... have you explained to the blacks and Latinos how sending $40 Billion to Ukraine was in their best interests yet?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-signs-40-billion-dollars-ukraine-ai
d-south-korea-trip/
Tick Tock
This is all you need to know about Second.
--------------------------------------------------
Me: "Remember Covid?"
Useless Idiots: "What's Covid, durr? Russia, Ukraine, Putin, NATO *drool*. DURRRR!!!!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have another that 6ix can't understand: The One Thing the Dissenting Justices Could Do to Save Roe v. Wade
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This is all you need to know about Second.
Five of the nine Supreme Court justices are prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade. The four justices in the minority can stop that from happening.
Federal law and the Supreme Court’s own rules establish the quorum of justices necessary to do business at six. Unless at least six justices agree to hear a case, the Supreme Court cannot act. Thus, a denial of quorum would deprive the presumptive five-justice majority in Dobbs from adopting Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft majority opinion, leaving Roe intact for now.
Deprivations of quorum are not novel. For instance, in 2008, the Supreme Court agreed to hear American Isuzu Motors Inc. v. Ntsebeza, a case concerning a group of businesses accused of maintaining apartheid in South Africa. Because so many large corporations were named defendants, four justices recused themselves due to conflicts of interest. As a result, the Supreme Court lacked a quorum and the five remaining justices were unable to rule on the case.
In such situations, federal law states that a majority of the remaining justices can either affirm the judgment of the lower court or, if they believe the lack of quorum is temporary, hold the case until the next term and decide it then. Accordingly, a majority of the five qualified justices in Ntsebeza voted to affirm the appeals court’s judgment, presumably because they did not foresee their fellow justices’ conflicts of interest abating.
Moreover, justices can recuse themselves from any case for any reason. To that end, while federal law compels recusal in the face of certain conflicts of interest, it imposes no requirement that unconflicted justices hear a case. Indeed, despite some lower courts imposing a “duty to sit” on federal judges—a duty that Chief Justice William Rehnquist once thought applicable to Supreme Court justices—never has a majority of the Supreme Court held that its justices must decide a case where they are qualified to do so.
For example, despite his qualification to hear cases, Justice Robert Jackson famously took a leave of absence from the Supreme Court from 1945 to 1946 to serve as chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, leaving eight justices to keep the court operating in his absence. Furthermore, to the extent a “duty to sit” ever applied to Supreme Court justices, Congress abolished it in 1974 to relieve federal judges from having to hear cases where they were arguably disqualified due to conflicts of interest, thus “enhanc[ing] public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial system.” One consequence of this legislation was an increase in the independence of the judiciary, giving judges the unchecked discretion to recuse themselves whenever they please, so long as federal law does not compel them to do so. Today, the four justices who will ostensibly make up the Dobbs minority can recuse themselves despite their having no apparent conflict of interest.
Justice and the institutional legitimacy of the Supreme Court demand that these justices do so.
So, to the four justices writing your dissents in Dobbs: Stop writing. Take evasive action. Recuse yourselves.
Denying quorum to avoid constitutional calamity may set a troubling precedent, but at least the Supreme Court would survive, as would the fundamental rights of millions upon millions of Americans. Watching your colleagues destroy a core constitutional right would be unimaginable. But watching them do so when you could have stopped them would be unforgivable.
More at https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/abortion-save-roe-v-wade-j
ustices-supreme-court-filibuster.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
What Justice Alito Can Learn From a 114-Year-Old Sex Abuse Scandal
By Aaron Tang
June 02, 2022, 12:32 PM
In 1908, a local scandal gripped the attention of some residents of Portland, Oregon. Authorities arrested a prominent “electric healer” named J.D. Dunn on allegations that he had sexually abused a fourteen-year-old patient during an appointment to treat her for goiter.
At trial, Dunn’s entire defense hung on the credibility of his star witness, a certain Mrs. Kruse. Kruse testified that she was physically present in Dunn’s office when he’d allegedly abused the minor patient—and that she saw no such thing.
Prosecutors responded with a tactic familiar to anyone who’s seen Law and Order: they tried to discredit Kruse on cross-examination. They got her to admit that she, too, was a patient of Dunn’s, but they couldn’t get her to describe the nature of her treatment. So they called another witness who testified that Dunn had actually performed an abortion on Kruse when she was three months pregnant.
What happened next reveals a striking lesson about the legal status of abortion in early America. This lesson casts severe doubt on the historical assertions that underpin Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an opinion that would eliminate the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
In Alito’s world, the accusation that Dunn had performed an abortion should have been a jaw-dropping moment in open court. At the time, Oregon had a law declaring any abortion performed on any “woman pregnant with a child” to be punishable as manslaughter. According to Alito, such language would have “made abortion a crime at all stages in pregnancy.” Dunn, in other words, had just been accused of an offense even more severe than the one for which he was on trial.
But in the real world, Oregon prosecutors never even considered prosecuting Dunn for performing the abortion. Quite the opposite. Appearing before the Oregon Supreme Court, attorneys for the state insisted that “abortion is not a crime” under Oregon law unless it results in the death “of a quick fetus.” Dunn had accordingly broken no law because he performed Kruse’s abortion prior to quickening—the point at which a fetus makes its first noticeable movement, as early as fifteen or sixteen weeks in pregnancy.
This is devastating for Alito’s argument. Here’s why.
Recall that the leaked opinion overturns Roe v. Wade on the basis of a particular legal test: the Constitution, it says, can only protect the right to abortion if it is “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.” Alito recognizes that this test is actually terrible for him as of the founding because every state then in the union respected the “distinction between pre- and post-quickening abortion” and treated the former as no crime at all.
His response is to assert that this tradition changed by the time the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. By then, Alito claims, “three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy.” So crucial is this argument to his opinion that he includes a 23-page appendix—longer than many Supreme Court majority opinions—quoting every state law he believes criminalized abortion throughout pregnancy.
Oregon is one of the states on his list.
But as the story of J.D. Dunn proves, that cannot be correct. Not unless one thinks Oregon prosecutors lied to their own Supreme Court when they affirmed the state’s longstanding position that pre-quickening abortions remained perfectly legal under the state’s abortion law, just as had been true throughout America at the founding.
With Alito’s mistreatment of Oregon revealed, the rest of his opinion crumbles. Many of the other state laws concerning abortion that Alito lists in his appendix used similar language—and were also understood to continue the founding-era tradition of permitting pre-quickening abortion (I describe those laws and how they were understood historically in this research paper https://papers.ssrn.co
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Janes HBO tells the revelatory story of a group of unlikely outlaws. Defying the state legislature that outlawed abortion, the Catholic Church that condemned it, and the Chicago Mob that was profiting from it, the members of “Jane” risked their personal and professional lives to support women with unwanted pregnancies in the pre-Roe v. Wade era. Premieres June 8 on HBO Max.
The Janes 2022 rated 84 out of 100
https://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-janes
The Catholic user score for this documentary at metacritic is very low. Catholics on the Supreme Court also gave Roe v Wade a low score. The Religion of the Supreme Court Justices -- https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/391649/religion-suprem
e-court-justices.aspx
The Janes 2022 rated 100% out of 100
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_janes
Download at https://yts.mx/movies/the-janes-2022
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
Grandfather of armed man who wanted to kill Brett Kavanaugh says he is a 'good kid'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10901867/Grandfather-armed-ma
n-wanted-kill-Brett-Kavanaugh-says-good-kid.html
Federal agents raided Roske's Simi Valley, Commiefornia home
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Roske allegedly called 911 on himself after taking a cab to Kavanaugh's house. He apparently told emergency dispatchers what his location was, and that he was armed and was suffering from a need for 'psychiatric help'.
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Grandfather of armed man who wanted to kill Brett Kavanaugh says he is a 'good kid'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10901867/Grandfather-armed-ma
n-wanted-kill-Brett-Kavanaugh-says-good-kid.html
Federal agents raided Roske's Simi Valley, Commiefornia home
This a parody: New Law Safeguards 50 Million Children From Threats Of Gun Violence By Adding Them To Supreme Court
https://www.theonion.com/new-law-safeguards-50-million-children-from-t
hreats-of-1849040554
Quote:The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
In an effort to prevent further gun deaths among minors, Congress passed a new law Thursday safeguarding 50 million children from threats of gun violence by adding them to the Supreme Court. “This law will do the important work of protecting these kids from those who wish to harm them with guns by putting them on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), explaining the children would have the same 24/7 Secret Service detail that is offered to all justices, agents who are willing to take a bullet for the youth when they’re at the playground, a public pool, or school. “Now that these children are members of the highest court in the land, they will no longer have to worry about a rogue gunman taking their lives. This law could protect millions of children, as anyone who is found carrying a firearm in their near vicinity will be immediately detained and face criminal charges.” At press time, Pelosi emphasized that the children would be forced to recuse themselves in cases involving gun rights, due to a conflict of interest.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthygeek tweeted:
Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I've been asking for ten years now of the "Life begins at Conception" crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly. 1/
7:34 PM · Oct 16, 2017·Twitter Web Client
https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672
It's a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one, because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there IS a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question. 2/
Here it is. You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. 3/
They're in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos." The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. 4/
Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no "C." "C" means you all die.
In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life, I have never gotten a single straight A or B answer to this question. And I never will. 5/
They will never answer honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is "A." A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically. 6/
This question absolutely eviscerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true.
No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you. 7/
They are lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false-equivalency.
No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who claim to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women. 8/
Don't let them. Use this question to call them out. Reveal them for what they are. Demand they answer your question, and when they don't, slap that big ol' Scarlet P of the Patriarchy on them. The end. 9/9
Because a lot of people are missing the point, it is not being argued the embryos are not alive. Nor is it being argued they are without value.
All that is being demonstrated is their value is not equal to that of a human child. That's it. That's the point.
Thank you to everyone in the comments twisting in the wind to find a way to avoid answering the question, just as I said you would. Your help proving my point is greatly appreciated.
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
GOP Senators blocked a bill allowing women free rights to interstate travel.
The eight-page bill would make it unlawful for a person or a government official to prevent or punish traveling across state lines "to receive or provide reproductive health care that is legal in that State." It also would bar states from imposing laws that prohibit women from traveling to other states to get abortions.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-block-bill-prote
cting-women-travel-states-abortion-rcna38301
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:
GOP Senators blocked a bill allowing women free rights to interstate travel.
Ummmmm...
That's not what they did.
There's not a single American citizen that isn't under house arrest that isn't 100% free to travel to any state they wanted to at this very moment. They don't even need a passport!
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME