203 Comments

Wow, you are a ass. You don't like NGT, your problem; no reason you need to show your ass to everyone.

Expand full comment

Because judges can do anything they want. If a judge wanted to she could reinstate laws from the tenth century. Or ancient Egypt.

Expand full comment

So now democrats have to “defend” maintaining a status quo in the law that had existed for nearly fifty years? Fuck that noise. Republicans are the ones trying to overturn the apple cart. They should have to justify why the viability standard should be jettisoned in favor of imaginary heart beats.

Expand full comment

In better Michigan news, the rethugs enjoying their majority in our leg used the <1% actual auto insurance fraud as a pretext to slash rates agencies could charge for nursing and attendant care for severely injured people by 45%. Not 4.5%, 45%. Nice huh? Most agencies either closed or stopped accepting auto-injury patients altogether, creating a care crisis. On Aug 25, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court ruling that applied the law to people injured before the law went into effect. So anyone who was injured before the new shitty law will not be required to find care at 55% the rates billed in 2019, which was virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has agreed to fiddle with this, but not until March, 2023. Humans do terrible things to each other.

Expand full comment

Studies show babbies in the first trimester are 53% more likely to vote Republican.

Expand full comment

Just the Southern half, which along with the Southern half of what is now NM, was recognized as the Arizona Territory by the CSA. It had all been the New Mexico Territory. By 1863 the area was under Union control, and the U.S. split an Arizona Territory from the New Mexico Territory along its current border.

Expand full comment

The Arizona Territory of 1864 was a U.S. Territory.

Expand full comment

LOL.

NGT, is that you?

Expand full comment

But more to the point, I find that liberals often overestimate the impact of human-rights based arguments. It's not that it's wrong to make that argument--on the contrary, it's absolutely necessary--it's that not everybody is moved by abstract emotional appeals, particularly if it's not matched with a call to action. So why leave a possible avenue of persuasion sitting on the table?

Two things:

1) The point of an economics-based argument is not to convince a social conservative, who is very clearly moved by abstract emotional appeals, but rather, well, how can I put it nicely? White male middle-class liberals.

2) Why white male middle-class liberals? Because for literally everybody else it's not an abstract emotional issue but a direct, existential one.

Expand full comment

In Leni Zumas’ stellar novel Red Clocks, set in a de-facto-one-party christopathic future America, women leaving the country are forced to take pregnancy tests and aren’t allowed to leave the country if they are pregnant.

Another novel the GQP is taking as an instruction manual…..

Expand full comment

Which is to say, the amendment, offered by state Rep. Carol Glanville, was killed before it could even be debated. If only they had a law blocking that sort of procedure...

Expand full comment

50% of all conceptions fail au naturel.

Expand full comment

I occasionally vividly imagine grabbing not the necks, but the, aahhh, other protruding bits, of those christopathic fascists, and ripping things out by the roots.

But only with work gloves on. Ain’t no one safe touching that bare-handed.

Expand full comment

Alex Jones is still in court. When he gets out, he’ll get right on that…

Expand full comment

If the uterus could do all the magical things rethug men think it can do, women would already rule the world.

Expand full comment