• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

In other words, while the 1954 Court felt Plessy was egregiously wrong, its egregious wrongess was not in itself enough for the Justices to overturn the ruling. They overturned Plessy, they argued, only because they had no other viable choice.

Perhaps the conservatives in Dobbs felt similarly about Roe, but that’s not the standard they used to justify their decision. Instead, in a concurring opinion, Kavanaugh laid out his own set of rules for disregarding precedent: “(i) the prior decision is not just wrong, but is egregiously wrong, (ii) the prior decision has caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences, and (iii) overruling the prior decision would not unduly upset legitimate reliance interests.”

The problem with Kavanaugh’s checklist is that each of its elements is completely subjective. In essence, Kavanaugh believes judges should unfailingly abide by past decisions unless they really don’t want to. That’s not a way to apply stare decisis. It’s a way to scrap it.
Seems like we are living in an era of judicial Calvinball, where the conservative Justices freely invent pseudo-historical and pseudo-Constitutional justifications for however they want to rule.
When have conservatives ever used any science? I see plenty of sciencyness, but no science.

When have conservatives ever used any history?
I see plenty of anachronisms, but no actual history.

When have the conservatives ever actually cared about using reason or logic consistently?
I see plenty of discussion of principles, but no uniformity in their application.

The goal of conservative thought is to justify doing whatever the fuck they want. That doesn't work well when you have to be consistent
 
Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 on Twitter: "Matt Gaetz today:

Q - Is it safe to say that, based off these comments, that you’re suggesting the women at these abortion rallies are ugly and overweight?

A - Yes

Q - What do you say to people who think those comments are offensive?

A - Be offended (vid link)" / Twitter


Matt Gaetz, Under Investigation for Sex With a Minor, Says Women Who Support Abortion Rights Are Too Fat and Ugly to Get Pregnant | Vanity Fair
Congress is filled with a lot of loathsome, moronic, thoroughly repugnant people, but perhaps none more so than Representative Matt Gaetz. Currently under investigation for allegedly paying women for sex and, separately, sleeping with a minor and transporting her across state lines, the Florida legislator responded to the assault on reproductive rights in May by tweeting: “How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?” But apparently that was just the start of this overgrown frat boy’s ignorant antiabortion routine, which he followed up on Saturday by telling a room full of teens and young adults that any woman who supports reproductive rights is too ugly for him to f--k.

...
“Have you watched these pro-abortion, pro-murder rallies?” Gaetz asked. “The people are just disgusting. But why is it is that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb. These people are odious on the inside and out. They’re like 5’2”, 350 pounds, and they’re like, ‘Give me my abortion or I’ll get up and march and protest.’ I’m thinking, March? You look like you got ankles weaker than the legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade. A few of ‘em need to get up and march. They need to get up and march for like an hour a day, swing those arms, get the blood pumping, maybe mix in a salad.”

A right-wing man who slavered over AOC despite calling her a supporter of killing babies:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Here is a video he posted of the incident. I was actually walking over to deck him because if no one will protect us then I’ll do it myself but I needed to catch a vote more than a case today (vid link)" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "I posted about a deeply disgusting incident that happened today on the Capitol steps, but took it down bc it’s clearly someone seeking extremist fame.

It’s just a bummer to work in an institution that openly allowed this, but talking about it only invites more. Just really sad." / Twitter


I think that he ought to get together with Rep. Matt Gaetz.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez shares video of man who harassed her on steps of U.S. Capitol
Standing at the bottom of the Capitol steps, the man, whose identity is unclear, recorded Ocasio-Cortez walking up the stairs. "See my favorite big booty Latina AOC!" he yells in the video, repeatedly pointing at her. "I love you AOC — you're my favorite!"

"She wants to kill babies, but she's still beautiful," he continues. "You look very beautiful in that dress. You look very sexy. Look at that big booty on AOC — that’s my favorite big booty Latina."
 
Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "Gaetz: "Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb." (vid link)" / Twitter -- with some video of him saying that.

Matt Gaetz says "women who look like a thumb" shouldn't complain about abortion rights | Salon.com

How the Supreme Court's "fauxriginalists" are warping the Constitution | Salon.com - "Right-wing justices claim they're delving for true meanings beneath the Constitution. It's another Big Lie"

That's the argument of Praveen Fernandes of the Constitutional Accountability Center, who suggests that a true originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution would not provide conservative results, because the document is, on the whole, remarkably progressive. Instead, Fernandes says, judicial conservatives distorting the meaning of the Constitution by practicing fauxriginalism:

[P]rogressives have not been fighting originalism; we have been fighting fauxriginalism. Fauxriginalism distorts the meaning of the Constitution, often by focusing selectively on some parts of the document, rather than by looking at the text, history, and values of the whole Constitution. Conservatives like to claim that originalism leads them to conservative results, but that's because they too often give a cramped meaning to the Constitution's text and ignore the constitutional history and values that help elucidate what that text means. In truth, conservatives have been a bit like the kid in our grade school class who delivered a book report, but who had only read the first chapters of the book — and didn't even read them that carefully.
Would the Catholic conservatives like how many of the colonial governments viewed Catholicism?
How progressive is it really? According to scholar Garry Wills, the Establishment Clause alone was a defining miracle of the U.S. Constitution. As James Madison wrote in his "Memorial and Remonstrance" statement on church and state, disestablishment both protected the free expression of religion and protected all citizens from the use of "Religion as an engine of Civil policy." In a letter to Madison, Thomas Jefferson argued that as the earth belongs to the living, any constitution (not just ours) was a living document, something that needed to be updated frequently as society evolved.
Some of the colonies had state-supported churches, all mainline-Protestant ones. So neither Catholics nor evangelicals will like originalism there.
 
Seven days in June: A coup more effective than Donald Trump's | Salon.com - June 24 to June 30

Weakening separation of church and state, and revoking Roe vs. Wade.

“Embarrassment to the Supreme Court”: Alito gloats and taunts critics of his anti-abortion ruling | Salon.com - "After writing an opinion striking down Roe, Alito hits out at Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau and Prince Harry"
"Despite this temptation, I'm not going to talk about cases from other countries," Alito continued. "All I'm going to say is that, ultimately, if we are going to win the battle to protect religious freedom in an increasingly secular society, we will need more than positive law."

...
Alito during his remarks alleged that "religious liberty is under attack" even though the impenetrable conservative majority on the Supreme Court gave religious rights groups their biggest wins in generations this term: striking down abortion rights, siding with a public high school football coach who prayed on the field after games, and banning Maine from excluding religious schools from tuition assistance programs.

"It is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don't think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection," Alito said.
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan:
"I'm not talking about any particular decision or even any particular series of decisions, but if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that's a dangerous thing for a democracy," she said during a conference in Montana last week. "People are rightly suspicious if one justice leaves the court or dies and another justice takes his or her place and all of sudden the law changes on you."
 
If the law is so flexible that we no longer know what the law currently is until the Scotus of the moment tells us what it is, how can we know how to be law abiding citizens? That is why courts should be slow to change laws and their interpretations.
 
Are the pro-punishment forces planning shenanigans in Kansas?


Just playing to the suckers or are they up to something?
 
Biden’s abortion response curbed by fears of another Supreme Court showdown - POLITICO
The White House remains largely intent on sticking to its deliberate process — arguing that rushing into major decisions just to ease Democrats’ nerves could end up doing more harm over the long term. Over the weekend, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield dismissed criticism of Biden’s urgency on abortion in a statement to The Washington Post, attributing it to activists “who have been consistently out of step with the mainstream of the Democratic Party.”
Seems like hippie-punching to me, like Bill Clinton vs. Sister Souljah.

Also making excuses for being so slow and negligent. Anyone with any knowledge of the US abortion culture war will be aware of what anti-abortionists want, and their willingness to accept whatever victories they can get, even if those victories are very tiny ones. The nomination of the three Trump Justices, the taking of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and the leaked decision draft. Amy Coney Barrett made the conservative bloc large enough to override John Roberts if he decides to vote with the liberal bloc, taking the Dobbs case indicated a willingness to revoke RvW, and the leaked draft only supported that willingness.

With that willingness so evident, the Biden Admin ought to have been working on options well in advance.
The administration rejected the option of opening abortion clinics on federal territory, citing concerns that patients in red states that criminalize abortion could be arrested as soon as they step off federal land. Officials also worried it would violate the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortion, and allow a future Republican administration could retroactively punish doctors working at such clinics.
The Bidenites wring their hands a lot. What cowards.
Despite Biden’s vow to take another look at the option, the administration is also skeptical of declaring a public health emergency over the restrictions on abortion access, an idea advanced ahead of the Supreme Court decision by a group of Black women Democrats in Congress.
But that has a risk of politicizing declarations of public health emergency.
Biden has yet to rule out other significant administration options, such as declaring that Food and Drug Administration regulations approving the use of abortion pills preempt state anti-abortion laws — or that the Hyde Amendment banning the use of federal money for abortion does not extend to funding out-of-state travel for people seeking abortions.

But there’s broad belief that those explicit moves would prompt immediate challenges from red states, and good odds those cases would end up in front of conservative judges thanks to the GOP’s Trump-era push to remake the judiciary.

Even if a policy survived the lower courts, it could still be rejected by the same five conservative Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe and have jumped at nearly any chance to constrain the government’s administrative authority.
The Biden Admin often seems very indecisive.
When he does make a big decision, it can appear slapdash; Biden, while traveling overseas, settled so suddenly on endorsing eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe that Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t know he planned to announce it that day, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

Days earlier, Harris, whose aides the person said had been advocating for more decisive action from the White House, downplayed the filibuster idea in an interview with CNN — a move that fed the initial round of activist anger over the administration’s immediate response.
So the Biden Admin is much like the Clinton Admin and the Obama Admin -- whimpering cowardly centrists who are afraid of displeasing the right wing, despite the right wing's portrayal of those admins as a bunch of hard-line extreme left-wing autocratic ogres.
White House official stressed that the administration continues to analyze additional ideas under the criteria they can “pass legal muster and that help and do not put at risk those whose rights and health we are trying to protect.”

But even Democrats and legal scholars who sympathize with the administration’s difficult position say Biden will ultimately need to take a big swing on abortion — no matter the odds of success.

“There’s always a possibility this court is going to broadly refashion the law in a way that limits Democratic administrations,” said Leah Litman, a University of Michigan law professor, adding that the White House should test the courts on abortion pill access and the Hyde Amendment. “That doesn’t seem a good enough reason to not do anything.”
If Joe Biden wants to be an FDR-style president, he ought to act like FDR.
 
Biden’s abortion response curbed by fears of another Supreme Court showdown - POLITICO
The White House remains largely intent on sticking to its deliberate process — arguing that rushing into major decisions just to ease Democrats’ nerves could end up doing more harm over the long term. Over the weekend, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield dismissed criticism of Biden’s urgency on abortion in a statement to The Washington Post, attributing it to activists “who have been consistently out of step with the mainstream of the Democratic Party.”
Seems like hippie-punching to me, like Bill Clinton vs. Sister Souljah.

Also making excuses for being so slow and negligent. Anyone with any knowledge of the US abortion culture war will be aware of what anti-abortionists want, and their willingness to accept whatever victories they can get, even if those victories are very tiny ones. The nomination of the three Trump Justices, the taking of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and the leaked decision draft. Amy Coney Barrett made the conservative bloc large enough to override John Roberts if he decides to vote with the liberal bloc, taking the Dobbs case indicated a willingness to revoke RvW, and the leaked draft only supported that willingness.

With that willingness so evident, the Biden Admin ought to have been working on options well in advance.
The administration rejected the option of opening abortion clinics on federal territory, citing concerns that patients in red states that criminalize abortion could be arrested as soon as they step off federal land. Officials also worried it would violate the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortion, and allow a future Republican administration could retroactively punish doctors working at such clinics.
The Bidenites wring their hands a lot. What cowards.
Despite Biden’s vow to take another look at the option, the administration is also skeptical of declaring a public health emergency over the restrictions on abortion access, an idea advanced ahead of the Supreme Court decision by a group of Black women Democrats in Congress.
But that has a risk of politicizing declarations of public health emergency.
Biden has yet to rule out other significant administration options, such as declaring that Food and Drug Administration regulations approving the use of abortion pills preempt state anti-abortion laws — or that the Hyde Amendment banning the use of federal money for abortion does not extend to funding out-of-state travel for people seeking abortions.

But there’s broad belief that those explicit moves would prompt immediate challenges from red states, and good odds those cases would end up in front of conservative judges thanks to the GOP’s Trump-era push to remake the judiciary.

Even if a policy survived the lower courts, it could still be rejected by the same five conservative Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe and have jumped at nearly any chance to constrain the government’s administrative authority.
The Biden Admin often seems very indecisive.
When he does make a big decision, it can appear slapdash; Biden, while traveling overseas, settled so suddenly on endorsing eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe that Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t know he planned to announce it that day, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

Days earlier, Harris, whose aides the person said had been advocating for more decisive action from the White House, downplayed the filibuster idea in an interview with CNN — a move that fed the initial round of activist anger over the administration’s immediate response.
So the Biden Admin is much like the Clinton Admin and the Obama Admin -- whimpering cowardly centrists who are afraid of displeasing the right wing, despite the right wing's portrayal of those admins as a bunch of hard-line extreme left-wing autocratic ogres.
White House official stressed that the administration continues to analyze additional ideas under the criteria they can “pass legal muster and that help and do not put at risk those whose rights and health we are trying to protect.”

But even Democrats and legal scholars who sympathize with the administration’s difficult position say Biden will ultimately need to take a big swing on abortion — no matter the odds of success.

“There’s always a possibility this court is going to broadly refashion the law in a way that limits Democratic administrations,” said Leah Litman, a University of Michigan law professor, adding that the White House should test the courts on abortion pill access and the Hyde Amendment. “That doesn’t seem a good enough reason to not do anything.”
If Joe Biden wants to be an FDR-style president, he ought to act like FDR.
That's not fair. In 1937, democrats controlled 80% of the house; 80% of the senate. So, yea, the d's got a lot of stuff done! FDR gets the credit, but come on. Today, Biden has 50% of the senate, 51% barely of the house. If people want more democratic policies, elect more democrats.
 
‘The Court has no comment’: It’s not publicly known whether the May leak of Alito’s draft opinion on Roe v. Wade is still under investigation - MarketWatch

"The draft was largely incorporated into Justice Samuel Alito’s final opinion"

Less than 24 hours after the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion that ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an investigation into the “egregious breach.”

Since then? Silence.
Was the leaker someone embarrassing? Like Sam Alito himself?
 
This is beyond fucked.

This appeal arises from an order denying a pregnant minor’s request to bypass parental notice of and consent for the termination of her pregnancy under the process set forth in section 390.01114, Florida Statutes.

So basically, this 17 year old was denied to have an abortion because she wasn't mature enough to make the decision herself. Fucking Florida logic.
 
This appeal arises from an order denying a pregnant minor’s request to bypass parental notice of and consent for the termination of her pregnancy under the process set forth in section 390.01114, Florida Statutes. The order was “without prejudice,” the trial court stating that it “may re-evaluate its decision” in a renewed hearing for the minor to “adequately articulate her request.”

The minor is almost seventeen years-old and parentless. She lives with a relative but has an appointed guardian. She is pursuing a GED with involvement in a program designed to assist young women who have experienced trauma in their lives by providing educational support and counseling. The minor experienced renewed trauma (the death of a friend) shortly before she decided to seek termination of her pregnancy.

Her petition—a standard form that she completed by hand— stated two potential bases for a waiver under the statute. First, the minor states that she is sufficiently mature to make the decision, saying she “is not ready to have a baby,” she doesn’t have a job, she is “still in school,” and the father is unable to assist her. See § 390.01114(6)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022) (specifying that a judicial bypass order may be issued if the trial judge “finds, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the minor is sufficiently mature to decide
whether to terminate her pregnancy”). Second, the minor states
that her “guardian is fine with what [she] wants to do,” which
would be a sufficient basis for a waiver of notice if other statutory
requisites are met. Id. § 390.01114(4)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (“Notice is
waived in writing by the person who is entitled to notice and such
waiver is notarized, dated not more than 30 days before the
termination of pregnancy, and contains a specific waiver of the
right of the parent or legal guardian to notice of the minor’s
termination of pregnancy[.]”). She inexplicably checked the box
indicating she did not request an attorney, which is available by
law for free under the statute. Id. § 390.01114(6)(a), Fla. Stat.
(“The court shall advise the minor that she has a right to courtappointed counsel at no cost to the minor. The court shall, upon
request, provide counsel for the minor at least 24 hours before the
court proceeding.”).
Sorry for the formatting.

So she has no parents to notify, her guardian supports her decision, she is in school and has no income and she realizes her becoming a mother is an untenable position for her to be in.

But she must have the baby.
 
Maybe the Church should pay her $350,000 to cover the costs of raising the child as well as sending both her and the child to college? I mean, isn't a part of the Catholic church's (which is the mother of all Christian churches in my opinion despite what they say because they use the catholic bible) position to expect the government to provide financial Aid as a tool against abortion? The Catholic church (and all it's offspring Christian churches) are half assing this because they ae gun hoe about stopping abortion but not gun hoe about making sure the government or themselves provide meaningful assistance.

I don't believe they should have any say, whatsoever. Just calling them out on their own BS.
 
Roe Overturned: Action Items | Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - YouTube - June 26
After a busy day of activism, she got a chance to go online. She said that she wanted to assure us that we have things that we can do beyond voting. Necessary but not sufficient, and I agree. One must vote, but it's not enough to vote.

I like that AOC knows about "necessary but not sufficient". If X implies Y, then Y is a necessary condition for X, and X a sufficient condition for Y.  Necessity and sufficiency

She challenges critics to come up with plans of their own. Then discusses what actions one can take, like donating to abortion funds. She asks her listeners if they can let visiting abortion seekers stay in their homes. "Everybody have something to give." Like some talent: being an artist or a writer, or having digital skills. What can one do "on a consistent basis"?

She asks that because the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, despite being huge, didn't have as much followup as was necessary to make the desired changes, and many communities reverted to how they were before.

Then how the overturning of RvW affects everybody, especially poor and minority women. She then said that small actions can add up, as sand in the gears of the horrible machine of right-wing oppression. Important to be willing to discuss abortion.

She says that her colleagues ought to consider funding not themselves but colleagues in frontline (vulnerable) seats. I note Katie Porter D-CA-47, who got 51% of the vote in the primary, with the Republicans getting a combined total of 49%.

AOC listed Ohio, supporting Tim Ryan against someone that she did not want to name. Why does she consider JD Vance so odious? Georgia. Iowa - House seat imperiled: presumably Cindy Axne D-IA-03. She suggests adopting some swing seat.

She recommends voting in primaries, and she recommended assessing whether antiabortion Democrats ought to continue. Also those who don't do much other than do the bidding of big donors. She recommends looking at state elections and local elections.

She then got into policy issues, saying that the Democratic Party is not doing enough for ordinary people. Some people in high places wring their hands and say that we can't do this and we can't do that, and she asked what they propose to do. She prefers: no = try something else, not give up.

She mentions opening abortion clinics on Federal land in red states. She then praises Rep. Ayanna Pressley for opposing the Hyde Amendment. But some people turned cowardly about doing so.

She recalled the Trump Admin responding to criticism of its actions with going ahead until stopped. She proposes doing the same sort of thing - that even a small bit of action before the courts strike something down is better than nothing.

She then got into the issue of whether or not some Supreme Court Justice candidates lied about their positions on RvW to get into that court. She said that it would be dangerous to normalize the precedent of such lying. Then discussing jumping back and forth about states' rights and what to use as precedent, like on guns. Then on releasing some documents connected to the January 6 insurrection - all but Clarence Thomas, whose wife is one of the insurrectionists, giving him a conflict of interest that he has refused to acknowledge.

She then noted that Abraham Lincoln ignored the Dred Scott decision when he issued his Emancipation Proclamation. Then FDR responding to the Supreme Court striking down New Deal stuff by threatening to pack that court with his appointees. The court backed down.

Then she returned to doing research on candidates. One should adopt some swing-seat candidate to support. One should also push politicians to say what they willing to do, as opposed to saying that they can't do this, that, or the other. AOC herself has done a commendable job of that, I must say. It's not enough to get people's votes and then do nothing with the power that those votes has given one.

She then gets into some endorsements, and she said that soon after she got elected, she contributed to several swing-district Democrats. I recall that there was some controversy about her doing so, because many of her intended recipients didn't want to be associated with her. "Here is a bribe I won't take", it seems like to me. She also bragged about some bacon she brought home, support of the reproductive-health facilities of the Elmhurst Hospital in Queens, NYC. But all bacon is pork. :D
 
AOC on Medical Emergencies in a Post-Roe America | Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - YouTube - June 30
If you think overturning Roe isn't going to be a big deal even for medical emergencies, you are in for a tough awakening.
Overturning Roe in states that ban abortion - including in states with exceptions for the mother's life - take the medical decision-making power AWAY from patients and doctors and puts it into the hands of the hospital's lawyer.
That means that many hospitals will have to wait until a person is actively at risk of death before assessing that they will be legally covered to treat them.

You shouldn't have to get a lawyer to receive life-saving care. This is just one of the MANY ways that abortion bans disproportionately impact working class and poor women.
That's already happening. How in danger of dying does one have to be before one can get an abortion? So hospitals have been consulting lawyers.

She suspects that many of the legislators that write anti-abortion laws are ignorant of a lot of female reproductive physiology and what can go wrong, like ectopic pregnancies.

She also notes that some pregnancy complications can cause disabilities that can last for the rest of one's life. Something not covered by "life of the mother" exceptions.

H.R.8296 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - codifies RvW
The vote on it - 219-210, on party lines except for Henry Cuellar D-TX, who voted against it.

H.R.3755 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - the same bill, but a year ago
The vote on it - 218-211, also on party lines except for Henry Cuellar.

H.R.8373 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Right to Contraception Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - codifying Griswold v. CT
The vote on it - 228-195, all Democrats for it and most Republicans against it. The exceptions, all R's:
Yes: Cheney WY, Fitzpatrick PA, Gonzalez OH, Katko NY, Kinzinger IL, Mace SC, Salazar FL, Upton MI
Present: Gibbs OH, Kelly PA
Not voting: Burchett TN, Davis R IL, McCaul TX, McKinley WV, Miller WV, Steube FL

H.R.8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - same-sex marriage (codifying Obergefell v. Hodges) and interracial marriage (codifying Loving v. VA)
The vote on it - 267-157, all Democrats for it and 1/4 of Republicans also for it (Y 47, N 157, nv 7)

None of these bills had any success in the Senate.
 
She suspects that many of the legislators that write anti-abortion laws are ignorant of a lot of female reproductive physiology and what can go wrong, like ectopic pregnancies.
I disagree. I think they just don't care.

The stupid Republican bitch running for governor here in Michigan says no exception for the life of the woman. Fuck that cunt.
 
She suspects that many of the legislators that write anti-abortion laws are ignorant of a lot of female reproductive physiology and what can go wrong, like ectopic pregnancies.
I disagree. I think they just don't care.

The stupid Republican bitch running for governor here in Michigan says no exception for the life of the woman. Fuck that cunt.
A bunch of them are absolutely that ignorant but most simply don't care. They have to be more holy right to life than anyone else because they're afraid someone will turn on them if they show any sense or mercy. Those are the better of the lot. The rest are worse.
 
This is beyond fucked.

This appeal arises from an order denying a pregnant minor’s request to bypass parental notice of and consent for the termination of her pregnancy under the process set forth in section 390.01114, Florida Statutes.

So basically, this 17 year old was denied to have an abortion because she wasn't mature enough to make the decision herself. Fucking Florida logic.
Many judges categorically deny minors requesting abortions. This is no surprise.
 
Back
Top Bottom