Pfft, please. The majority of Texas voters will solve that problem on Wednesday morning when you hear the name Lt. Governor Dan Patrick. He's got the vitrol of Rish Limpdick, the love for Jeebus like Pat Robertson and the IQ of an armadillo.
It totally is not, because of how removal is exactly as good as replacement fifty-four times. That is scientifickal GOP reasonation, and as such, is peer-reviewed and unimpeachable, at least until they have a majority in the Senate.
I suppose there is some wingnut explanation, but how does the following not violate the First Amendment?
"In view of the state’s strong interest in promoting childbirth and adoption over elective abortion, no school district or charter school in this state may allow any presentation during instructional time or furnish any materials to pupils as part of any instruction that does not give preference, encouragement and support to childbirth and adoption as preferred options to elective abortion."
"In view of the state’s strong interest ..."
Did the Xtard numbskulls who wrote this law ever get around to explaining <i>why</i> Arizona has a strong interest in having more teen mothers and more illegitimate kids?
So if I cut a hole in my map of the U.S., would Gilbert, Arizona cease to exist?
Pfft, please. The majority of Texas voters will solve that problem on Wednesday morning when you hear the name Lt. Governor Dan Patrick. He&#039;s got the vitrol of Rish Limpdick, the love for Jeebus like Pat Robertson and the IQ of an armadillo.
This is why they are called Planned Parenthood &quot;Redaction Clinics&quot; in Arizona, now.
Because it is totally different
Wait. You can REMEMBER 1984?
Mmmm.
It totally is not, because of how removal is exactly as good as replacement fifty-four times. That is scientifickal GOP reasonation, and as such, is peer-reviewed and unimpeachable, at least until they have a majority in the Senate.
So, not the Dan Patrick from ESPN then?
Do you have pictures? (asking for a friend)
As long as those students do not have access to the google machine, their plan is sheer elegance in its simplicity.
<i>&quot;By redacting, we are not censoring...&quot;</i>
Apparently they&#039;ve redacted part of the dictionary too.
I&#039;m no fan of home schooling, but if the alternative is the Arizona Department of Education, hey! what harm could it do?
The word of God cutteth like a two-edged sword.
&quot;You just killed the solar system!&quot;
I suppose there is some wingnut explanation, but how does the following not violate the First Amendment?
&quot;In view of the state&rsquo;s strong interest in promoting childbirth and adoption over elective abortion, no school district or charter school in this state may allow any presentation during instructional time or furnish any materials to pupils as part of any instruction that does not give preference, encouragement and support to childbirth and adoption as preferred options to elective abortion.&quot;
&quot;In view of the state&rsquo;s strong interest ...&quot;
Did the Xtard numbskulls who wrote this law ever get around to explaining <i>why</i> Arizona has a strong interest in having more teen mothers and more illegitimate kids?