It should go without saying that pro-life really means pro birth. After they’re born? Fuck those kids.
And with the amount of Covid babies I’ve seen being born. Ho-ly shit!!! It’s like the snow storm effect, but over multiple years. People were either fighting or fucking apparently, sometimes both. Our infant, tod and 2s rooms are busting at the seams. I’m curious to see the official numbers on this, as wouldn’t be surprised if it rivals the baby boomer stuff. perhaps the government should start to take things like that into account first
All Ive read is the initial year 2020 saw a decline and early 2021 a slight increase. No big baby boom ala the NYC black out. Everyone was home too scared to have kids with economic wrought of lockdowns.
My favorite thing about this argument is if you say that about guns, the immediate response is that people are going to get them anyway. But their rationale is that women somehow won't get illegal and unsafe abortions? These people are fucking stupid.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Supreme Court draft opinions both for and against anything they will be ruling on, so that when they do cast their ruling they are all in agreement on the verbiage? And once they finally do rule on something they take the original draft of the side their ruling fell on, finalize it, and then release it?
The process is roughly: They listen to arguments Each justice confers with their clerks to do whatever further analysis they consider relevant The justices gather together in Conference where they briefly stake their position, and then vote. The most senior justice in the majority assigns one of the majority to write the opinion The justice writes a draft opinion based on the position of the majority The draft is sent to the other justices for feedback Once a majority of justices formally agree to the majority opinion by "signing on" it becomes the official majority opinion The other justices may write a concurrence or a dissent as they see fit
Most dissents are written as a rebuttal to the majority opinion, so while they may do the bulk of the work drafting it any time after 3, it usually doesn't wrap up until 8.
This will create the Medical Tourism industry for the States if it happens. If you outlaw something that shouldn’t be outlawed that people want (like drugs), people will find away around it. And they will never stop trying.
There are a myriad of issues with that...for example, if you fly from TX to MA to get an abortion because you got raped (or claimed you did when your mom comes with you), they start an investigation...in Texas, no? Not an expert, but that would have to get feds involved, or some form of interstate task force.... Also, for cases of medical necessity, wouldn't you have to bring records, labs, etc. with you? So your doc in Texas just has to tell you, well you can't abort this parasite, so it's gonna kill you....and they can't give you records to take with you to another state, because they'd face higher fines and jail times than if they raped you. This whole thing is fucking stupid.
The federal government is going to have to address it, and I don't think abortion is going away. Using your example, Texas would have to initiate court proceedings with the state of MA to deal with any case-related evidence. Good luck getting the Mass. AG or any local/state jurisdictions to comply with it whatsoever. As for crossing state lines, no one, especially federal law enforcement, is going to waste resources tracking down women that got an abortion despite the doom-and-gloom about it, just like they don't give a shit about weed being legal in MA and not in Texas. Otherwise, every single abortion is going to end up in federal court.
Of course it’s fucking stupid. But one of the key features of these new archaic laws that get passed with the intention of only targeting people they don’t like is that the downstream consequences are rarely considered when they are passed. Whether it’s overturning a 50 year old case or banning certain books.
The people behind these laws are not stupid. They are either religious zealots who believe in some outlandish shit, like trying to engineer Revelations in real life, or they are people who think they can sucker zealots into giving them what they want, which is usually gutting some element of public life in order for someone in their sphere to profit off of it. Not rational, but not stupid...from the looks of things, they are very strategic, and very successful. Put another way: folks have been fighting this for 50 years, and only in the last 5-6 have they had any degree of success. They show no signs of being inhibited now, and it's frightening how these people have hijacked democracy at the state and local level...now at the SC level, where insulating them from consequences is the fucking Constitution.
It's definitely veering into "you're definitely admitting to a sexual fantasy somewhere in here" territory, but it touches on a valid point: anti-abortion people get abortions. It's something that's been widely discussed for years, and is common enough that there's a term for it, "the only moral abortion is my abortion." It displays a fundamental lack of empathy on the part of the anti-abortion folks that they are perfectly capable of rationalizing abortion when they need one, but are incapable of realizing that other people are in the same situation they are in.
I mean, does it touch on that point? If that was the intent, there were probably a dozen less offensive ways to make it.
Maybe she's just really excited that BLM is no longer pushing women's issues out of public discourse?
Probably, but the fact that it touches on it disqualifies it from the "worst take" award. To that I would direct you to Matt Gaetz, Florida Congressman widely known for "dating" women who haven't graduated high school, calling pro-choice women "over-educated."