https://twitter.com/designm...As this Mormon mommyblogger pointed out at length, every pregnancy is a result of someone's ejaculation. 100%, full stop. Women do not get pregnant on their own. And yet, none of the people who express such concern about limiting or eliminating abortions ever talk about doing anything to stop irresponsible ejaculations. Wonder why that is?
They don't want to show their hand before the midterms, so he lied. Remember, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court are all politicians first and jurists fifth or sixth if we're lucky.
This all seems, to me, highly reminiscent of Taney's Dred Scott decision. As then, so now: a court intervened without a cause of action, so that it could rule on a subject dear to its heart, but representing an already outdated minority position (no polls then, but we can take the final outcome as indicative of what they might have been). An entire category of humans ruled subhuman, their labor, health, and lives subject to hijack in support of the dominant and empowered fraction. Alito's draft in fact guts much of the judicial precedent established by the Reconstruction Amendments that effectively overruled Taney's signature decision. In its place, Alito cites a jurist whose opinion on abortion must be (both misunderstood and) accepted. It follows that other opinions of this venerable sage: the death penalty for practicing witchcraft, the impossibility of marital rape and the Hale Queries for all rape victims to determine whether they were culpable in their own rape, must also be accepted. No?
Well, perhaps not. By overthrowing fifty years of settled precedent and as a side effect of reaching this desired goal undermining the foundations of numerous civil rights advances, the court announces itself not a SCOTUS, but a lawless gang of hooligans and wreckers, who will ignore any precedent and accept the most hollow of excuses to reach the results they desire. Given that these are all wealthy people, and that they have proven that they have absolutely no judgment or understanding of the population subject to their vicious whims, they are as likely to announce that some article of the constitution outlaws pink hair dye or income taxes as they are to resolve issues of justice and equity.
' ... no law is going to be read by any judge, prosecutor, or cop to outlaw miscarriages."I choked on my lunch sandwich when I read that for the first time. It gripes my stomach every time I see it now. It's outstanding for asinine shit-headedness even today. As Robyn says, hundreds of prosecutors have done just that even while Roe was on the books. Now it'll be open slather. Women galore who have had miscarriages - and maybe lost a baby they longed for - will get extra troubles from a drove of arrogant, ambitious prosecutors who will charge them with murder now that abortion (and even using an IUD) will be legally defined as murder.And what about kids born with disastrous genetic conditions that require very expensive ongoing medical treatment for them to survive? What will forced birthers, especially Republican ones, say to them? We know the answer. "Listen, kid, we legislated to make sure you'd be born. Now you're on your own. It's your mom's worry. And your dad's, if he decides to stick around."
SCOTUS has become a “fuck you” court, just like trump was the “fuck you” president. It’s not the law being executed here, it’s pure power. And Roe is just the beginning.
I think professional morale busters like Barro/McArdle already smell it, because they’re spouting the same “relax and enjoy it” B.S. they produced ad-nauseam throughout four years of chaos, pestilence, and death. It’s how they comfort their consciences as the world goes insane
Why is any man invited to express an opinion that isn’t staunchly pro choice? I don’t go around saying their ED drugs should be outlawed, or they should all have mandatory vasectomies at puberty, followed by vasectomy reversals at the whims of their spouses. I’d like to say these things, but I don’t, because I’m not a man and don’t know what it would be like to need a boner pill or have same-day outpatient surgery that permits you to cry like a bitch with a bag of frozen peas down your pants for a week. Shut up, John McWhorter, or I’m coming for your Viagra.
ffs - i don't need to have (or lack) a certain body part to know that regulating the bodily autonomy of another adult person is BAD. Sure, parents need to make medical decisions for kids too young to consent to treatment (and we all know all sorts of shenanigans go on there) but FFS we should keep our noses out of other peoples medical situation and decisions! Is that feminism? maybe not - maybe its just plain decency
Favorite Sondheim quote:"You're so nice. You're not good, you're not bad, you're just nice...I'm not nice, I'm not good, I'm just right."
You might be thinking of those spring things they shoved into fallopian tubes. I think it was called esure or ensure.
I think I’m thinking of older versions of IUDs.
Quislings.
https://twitter.com/designm...As this Mormon mommyblogger pointed out at length, every pregnancy is a result of someone's ejaculation. 100%, full stop. Women do not get pregnant on their own. And yet, none of the people who express such concern about limiting or eliminating abortions ever talk about doing anything to stop irresponsible ejaculations. Wonder why that is?
Or any medical advice since they aren’t staffed by medical professionals.
They don't want to show their hand before the midterms, so he lied. Remember, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court are all politicians first and jurists fifth or sixth if we're lucky.
Will there be pie?
This all seems, to me, highly reminiscent of Taney's Dred Scott decision. As then, so now: a court intervened without a cause of action, so that it could rule on a subject dear to its heart, but representing an already outdated minority position (no polls then, but we can take the final outcome as indicative of what they might have been). An entire category of humans ruled subhuman, their labor, health, and lives subject to hijack in support of the dominant and empowered fraction. Alito's draft in fact guts much of the judicial precedent established by the Reconstruction Amendments that effectively overruled Taney's signature decision. In its place, Alito cites a jurist whose opinion on abortion must be (both misunderstood and) accepted. It follows that other opinions of this venerable sage: the death penalty for practicing witchcraft, the impossibility of marital rape and the Hale Queries for all rape victims to determine whether they were culpable in their own rape, must also be accepted. No?
Well, perhaps not. By overthrowing fifty years of settled precedent and as a side effect of reaching this desired goal undermining the foundations of numerous civil rights advances, the court announces itself not a SCOTUS, but a lawless gang of hooligans and wreckers, who will ignore any precedent and accept the most hollow of excuses to reach the results they desire. Given that these are all wealthy people, and that they have proven that they have absolutely no judgment or understanding of the population subject to their vicious whims, they are as likely to announce that some article of the constitution outlaws pink hair dye or income taxes as they are to resolve issues of justice and equity.
Thank you!
Yes!
' ... no law is going to be read by any judge, prosecutor, or cop to outlaw miscarriages."I choked on my lunch sandwich when I read that for the first time. It gripes my stomach every time I see it now. It's outstanding for asinine shit-headedness even today. As Robyn says, hundreds of prosecutors have done just that even while Roe was on the books. Now it'll be open slather. Women galore who have had miscarriages - and maybe lost a baby they longed for - will get extra troubles from a drove of arrogant, ambitious prosecutors who will charge them with murder now that abortion (and even using an IUD) will be legally defined as murder.And what about kids born with disastrous genetic conditions that require very expensive ongoing medical treatment for them to survive? What will forced birthers, especially Republican ones, say to them? We know the answer. "Listen, kid, we legislated to make sure you'd be born. Now you're on your own. It's your mom's worry. And your dad's, if he decides to stick around."
SCOTUS has become a “fuck you” court, just like trump was the “fuck you” president. It’s not the law being executed here, it’s pure power. And Roe is just the beginning.
I think professional morale busters like Barro/McArdle already smell it, because they’re spouting the same “relax and enjoy it” B.S. they produced ad-nauseam throughout four years of chaos, pestilence, and death. It’s how they comfort their consciences as the world goes insane
Why is any man invited to express an opinion that isn’t staunchly pro choice? I don’t go around saying their ED drugs should be outlawed, or they should all have mandatory vasectomies at puberty, followed by vasectomy reversals at the whims of their spouses. I’d like to say these things, but I don’t, because I’m not a man and don’t know what it would be like to need a boner pill or have same-day outpatient surgery that permits you to cry like a bitch with a bag of frozen peas down your pants for a week. Shut up, John McWhorter, or I’m coming for your Viagra.
I know some plowshares types, one of whom was arrested with one of the Berrigans. I can’t remember which one.
ffs - i don't need to have (or lack) a certain body part to know that regulating the bodily autonomy of another adult person is BAD. Sure, parents need to make medical decisions for kids too young to consent to treatment (and we all know all sorts of shenanigans go on there) but FFS we should keep our noses out of other peoples medical situation and decisions! Is that feminism? maybe not - maybe its just plain decency