I don’t think the case of rape that’s being talked about is a claim. I think they’re talking about criminal charges having been filed and a guilty verdict in court.
But so what? If a man forces himself on a women and impregnates her against her will, she should not have to bear the consequences of that man’s domination.
What gives men the right to dominate women? If the woman doesn’t want pregnancy, then the man is abusing the woman if he impregnates her. Why doesn’t the “sin” come down upon the man and why isn’t the woman relieved from the abusive or even criminal act?
If a criminal stole your money and still had it when he was caught, would you let him keep it or would you demand recompense — the return to things as they were? Then why shouldn’t the woman impregnated by rape or abuse not qualify for the return to things as they were?
Yes indeed. And the Supreme Court even said their laws supersede state laws, so they could open abortion clinics. And...there are lot of tribal lands in the red states. So this could be one YUGE loophole that solves many problems.
I'm all for it.
I also thought about having Synagogues open clinics, and claiming freedom of religion. But I hate to add to the violent anti-semitism of the Christian right.
Pastafarians. Several judges, including federal appeals courts, have said it's not their job to say whose religious convictions are deeply held. I may be wrong but I think the Supreme Court has basically said that in cases where they allowed special privileges and rights for mainly Christian groups. So just about anyone should be able to point to previous appellate and Supreme Court decisions that say all you need to do is say it's a deeply held religious conviction and you can proceed with whatever it was you wanted to do.
The 5th circuit federal appeals court said the same thing about a state legislature using quack science to justify abortion restrictions. They said they were not going to question legislative claims, even if the AMA and numerous other medical associations say it's bullshit. After all, insurance salespeople, lawyers, and small business owners know more about women's bodies than doctors and women themselves.
Go pack your bags then, boy. (Yes, I went there.)Grrrrrrrrr
Good point and I agree. No woman should be forced to be a mother
Which is exactly why we should all be raising a stink!
I don’t think the case of rape that’s being talked about is a claim. I think they’re talking about criminal charges having been filed and a guilty verdict in court.
But so what? If a man forces himself on a women and impregnates her against her will, she should not have to bear the consequences of that man’s domination.
What gives men the right to dominate women? If the woman doesn’t want pregnancy, then the man is abusing the woman if he impregnates her. Why doesn’t the “sin” come down upon the man and why isn’t the woman relieved from the abusive or even criminal act?
If a criminal stole your money and still had it when he was caught, would you let him keep it or would you demand recompense — the return to things as they were? Then why shouldn’t the woman impregnated by rape or abuse not qualify for the return to things as they were?
Yes indeed. And the Supreme Court even said their laws supersede state laws, so they could open abortion clinics. And...there are lot of tribal lands in the red states. So this could be one YUGE loophole that solves many problems.
I'm all for it.
I also thought about having Synagogues open clinics, and claiming freedom of religion. But I hate to add to the violent anti-semitism of the Christian right.
I hope the tribes give Stitt a stiff middle finger. What a fucking authoritarian whack job with a god complex.
Wonder what goes on behind closed doors at the Stitt home? The Duluth wheel comes into mind...(power and control/domestic violence)
R'amen!
Superficially compassionate...
eliz_, your experience and determination is a force of nature. I wish you all the best.
“Return to things as they were” = “females exist as proto-brood mares”
GAGGING ON MY SINCERIOTOCIOUSNESS!!!!
And chattel.
Pastafarians. Several judges, including federal appeals courts, have said it's not their job to say whose religious convictions are deeply held. I may be wrong but I think the Supreme Court has basically said that in cases where they allowed special privileges and rights for mainly Christian groups. So just about anyone should be able to point to previous appellate and Supreme Court decisions that say all you need to do is say it's a deeply held religious conviction and you can proceed with whatever it was you wanted to do.
The 5th circuit federal appeals court said the same thing about a state legislature using quack science to justify abortion restrictions. They said they were not going to question legislative claims, even if the AMA and numerous other medical associations say it's bullshit. After all, insurance salespeople, lawyers, and small business owners know more about women's bodies than doctors and women themselves.
If that’s true, then men exist as indiscriminate impregnators with no responsibilities beyond that, right?
Gandhi said that all the time