“It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear”.
“The fall of Roe could also be disastrous for IVF: Since the process often produces extra embryos, which for the anti-choice movement still constitute life that should be protected, states may decide to impose restrictions on the practice or outlaw it altogether. But regardless of what happens to IVF, there is the question of the fate of the embryos that are currently being stored, and who will pay for that storage if the creators of the embryos can’t.”
“Why roller coaster loops aren’t circular anymore”.
“The president and Congress can check SCOTUS’ power when they believe the justices have exceeded their mandate. This might be the best way to save the court from itself.”
“Almost from the beginning of this series of blockbuster hearings, the [January 6] committee has been up-front about its intention not just to tell the truth, but to do so bluntly and directly.”
Let’s go, Brandon Brundidge.
“Doctors in red states are reporting a huge spike in demand for vasectomies and tubal ligations as Americans react to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
“Sounds Like Ron DeSantis Needs To Ban Taking Kids To Contemporary Christian Concerts!”
“More guns in public means more lost and stolen guns, which supply a criminal black market, and laws enshrining the right to carry weapons sap the ability of police to actually investigate gun crimes. Right to carry laws are associated with a stunning 35 percent increase in gun thefts, a 13 percent decline in violent crime clearance rates, and as a result, a 29 percent increase in firearm crime, especially robberies. Ostensibly law-abiding gun owners, like those who would automatically get the right to carry a gun in public in a post-Bruen world, can make America a more violent place even if they aren’t actually acting out Bernard Goetz fantasies.”
“During the Baby Scoop Era, the toxic mix of a lack of sex education, birth control, and a post-war boom in premarital sex, led to a baby boom and increasing numbers of unmarried pregnant women. Many of these women and teenagers were sent to maternity homes where they would have their babies in secret, then place them up for adoption and return to their lives as if nothing had happened.”
RIP, Robert Curl, Nobel Prize winning chemist at Rice University, who was on the team that discovered a new form of carbon known as “buckyballs”. Curl was also a fixture on the local tournament bridge scene, and I had the pleasure of sitting down against him any number of times back in the day. He was well-liked in that community and at Rice, and he will be missed. You should read the Rice University news release about him as well.
Disbar them all, at the very least.
RIP, Kazuki Takahashi, Japanese manga artist who created Yu-Gi-Oh!.
RIP, James Caan, longtime movie star best known for The Godfather.
“Fact Check: 99% of the World’s Population Gets Sunlight at the Same Moment on July 8″.
RIP, Tony Sirico, actor best known as Paulie Walnuts on The Sopranos. Rolling Stone has a lovely article about him as well.
RE: “The president and Congress can check SCOTUS’ power when they believe the justices have exceeded their mandate. This might be the best way to save the court from itself.”
Comment: If this is meant as a response to the Dobbs ruling, it fails on logic.
In Dobbs, after all, the SCOTUS majority decided to get out of the abortion regulation business (largely).
The U.S. audience has blinders on in this respect. A legacy of Roe, no doubt, and the general tendency to rely on courts to decide controversial social and public policy issues, thereby making lawyers and interest groups the key policy shapers rather than politicians who are accountable to voters. The result, of course, is that the courts become political actors because they make the ultimate binding public policy decision on what goes and what doesn’t.
Every country has some public policy on abortion, even if it’s just a policy of laissez faire, and the more normal approach is through legislation (which typically requires compromise since a single political party rarely has an absolute parliamentary majority), though the constitutional court or council may play a role in setting limits, as in Germany. In some counties, a popular vote has been used to decide the issue (referendum).
So, now that the highest court in the U.S. has retreated and given up its oversized role in setting national abortion policy, how would that require the political branches to *restrain* the Court, rather than creating the opportunity to step into the policy space thus created?
The contrary argument is a non-sequitur.
The political branches have just re-acquired the power to make abortion policy by themselves as they see fit, rather than judges dictating to them.
IN DEFENSE OF THE FRUITS OF THE PASSION
RE: Many of these women and teenagers were sent to maternity homes where they would have their babies in secret, then place them up for adoption and return to their lives as if nothing had happened.”
And what exactly is the problem with that (other than two problems solved with one comprehensive solution)?
Seriously, what is the argument here, which would call for some empirical investigation, not just a discussion of morality.
LET’S GIVE IT A TRY BY WAY OF HYPOTHESES:
Did the passion-driven procreation involving reckless ejaculators and fallen young women improve the gene pool or not? Or was there no such effect, not even considering the age skew of the procreating fecund segment of the relevant population, i.e. disproportionately youthful progenitors? Are young virulent spermatozoa and ova inferior to well-aged ones – frozen or otherwise – or is it the other way round?
Second: Was it — or was it not — beneficial to the surrendered products of impetuous conception to be raised by two parents that chose to embrace them to raise them with tender love and care (and considerable expense) as if they were their own?
Finally, what’s the message here to adoptees?
That they are a lesser breed? Untermenschen of some sort?
That their lives are not worth living because they ought to have been discarded?
“ The political branches have just re-acquired the power to make abortion policy by themselves as they see fit, rather than judges dictating to them.”
Too bad that “as they see fit” is in many states a contest to see who can write the cruelest, most draconian abortion policies. TX’s vigilante lawsuit bill is a prime example. I can’t think of a worse way to shatter hopes of reaching any sort on common ground and compromise on this issue than to give the nastiest busybodies a profit motive to interfere in the private lives of others. There’s also the real issues of doctors being torn between their duty to a patient and the possibility of criminal charges if their best medical judgment is to terminate a pregnancy that has become life threatening. Just how close to death’s door must a women be?? All the conservative state legislators eagerly penning more and outrageous restrictions don’t look to be putting any useful guidance on the very important issue into those policies. As for that recent issue of the 10-year old rape victim, forcing her to give birth to a rapist’s child would be barbaric.
The problem with your maternity home solution is the horrid track record of so many of those places. Go Google it and see all the sordid things that pop up.
I’m reading that there are doubts about the veracity of the story of the 10-year rape victim in OH, because so far no sources other than one doctor. I add this because it’s never a good idea to treat stories that aren’t verified as fact. There was a verified case in Brazil, so such horrid situations are possible and would risk the worst possible outcomes in many of the red states, especially since Abbott is way behind on eliminating rape.
Re: TX’s vigilante lawsuit bill
S.B.8. is a problematic bill, no doubt, even for pro-lifers, but in the meantime, there is the criminal-enforcement issue, which is a much bigger deal, especially the trigger-law statutes, which has heavier penalties than the pre-Roe statutes that are currently been challenged in WWH v. Paxton and In re Paxton (mandamus).
Also, Kuff got that wrong too. The current case by Whole Women’s Health against Paxton et al does not (yet) involve the trigger law, which won’t go into effect until after the judgment/mandate is issued by the SCOTUS. That’s a document separate from the opinion deciding the case, which overruled Roe and Casey. It’s about whether the old pre-Roe Texas abortion statutes are still good now that the SCOTUS has changed its mind about their constitutionality.
But you should also consider the empirical evidence on S.B.8 litigation rather than conjuring up a sky-collapse apocalypse.
HOW MUCH SENATE BILL 8 LITIGATION?
There has been a total of N=4 cases, and all 4 are the result of an abortion doctor “begging” to be sued to create a test case to attack the constitutionality of S.B.8. It’s a staged-lawsuit scenario and has been amply discussed among the jurisprudential professoriate.
Additionally, none of those 4 was filed with the aid of a lawyer (who obviously would deem such a case a sure loser (ergo, no bounty and no contingent fee recovery) or risk professional discipline for collusive litigation if planning to lose so as to manufacture a desired precedent. So there goes the hysteria about unlimited attorney-fees-shifting liability and an avalanche of bounty-hunter suits. And the in-terrorem effect of possible civil liability no longer carries much weight because of the criminalization of most abortions in the interim.
Unlike actual litigators, the law profs are probably safe as long as they only exercise their academic freedom to suggest sinister litigation methods under the principle that the end justifies whatever means.
And … get this: There are by now more law review articles than actual S.B.8 cases ever filed, though those academic exertions are now mostly obsolete following the delivery of Dobbs, which is a game-changer. What a bummer!
And how did those four S.B.8 cases go?
Well, 2 of 4 have been nonsuited (i.e., dropped), 1 was never prosecuted and is eligible for DWOP (dismissal for want of prosecution), the fourth one — filed recently — is still alive, but with a big caveat. It is a refiled version of the first one, and the plaintiff (a no-longer attorney) is currently subject to a federal anti-suit injunction as well as potentially for contempt and sanctions. We’ll have to see whether they “hang him high” to make an example of him.
Unfortunately, you can’t rely on the media to keep you up to date on this stuff. They report what fits their preconceived framing and agenda and practice strategic silence to prevent the public from being fully and fairly informed.
Looks like this lady had a similar idea to mine, abortion tourism, only this woman is trying to crowd fund an abortion ship that I guess will anchor in federal waters in the Gulf, and thus, skip any state regulation.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-reproductive-rights-government-and-politics-bfab2bd6604229d7b2bcad630037c4e8
I’m thinking the most cost effective thing to do would be to contract with one or more of the casino gambling ships that do the same thing, sail to federal or international waters, and put together abortion cruises. Retrofit some of the staterooms as operating rooms. The women can have their abortions, and then either hang around in their own staterooms, or gamble, dine, or take in a show afterwards. In fact, given Disney’s strong support of abortion, I don’t see why they don’t run with this idea; they already have the ships to do it with and already do themed cruises.
As for marketing, this woman, or Disney, or whoever cashes in on this bonanza first, could solicit business from all the corporations that have come out with the now standard $ 4,000 payment for an abortion. That should cover round trip air or a bus ticket, taxis, the cost of the abortion and cruise, and still leave enough profit for the operator to make money.
For quick reference, here’s the ActBlue fundraising page for this Gulf abortion ship fundraising effort. I make no endorsement for or against, simply presenting the info.
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/prrowess
In true conservative fashion, with these comments rolo has once again won an argument against no one by laying down such a thick carpet bombing of bullshit that no one with a life could possibly have the time or stamina to refute it all.