It would have to be a private clinic, not through IHS
1 Like
It isn’t just that. They want to completely dismantle agency and bureaucratic power. Every little rule, every little paperclip, every little procedure would have to be legislated word by word by Congress, as far as the hard right on the court is concerned. It would effectively paralyze the federal government, reducing us to third-class status compared to Europe, China or even countries like India and Russia – all in the name of a completely warped and romanticized view of a pre-modern era when railways hadn’t yet been invented.
3 Likes
It would be very sad to be an ex-pat. My family…well one branch …got here in the 1600’s. The other in 1816. And we bled for America. Many times. We didn’t bleed for what the goobers want. My dad a navy pilot who fought in WW2 and who was a republican would never have supported trump.
3 Likes
I’m not the kind who hero worships, but I make an exception for Jamie Raskin.
4 Likes
So?
Be cautious, There’s much to like about Raskin but remember, he is a politician. Politicians are not like other folk. Their prime motivation is reelection, not necessarily what their constituents need most. But sometimes they sacrifice their careers for what is right. That is what Liz Cheney has done. I dislike her right wing politics but she lives her oath.
2 Likes
The Democrats have had numerous opportunities to codify Roe. Geez, all the way back to Carter, and then Clinton’s first two years when he had large majorities. Obama did as well in his first two years. The truth is the Democrats haven’t done a fucking thing to prevent the demise of Roe. More Democrats won’t fix this. We need a new species of Democrat.
1 Like
Only three?
3 Likes
Okay, six… 
4 Likes
Much much better. I knew you had it in you!
4 Likes
If I put a fertilized single cell human egg in a petri dish and flood it with a lethal dose of alcohol, can the anti-woman states charge and try me for homicide? Or perhaps charge and try me for giving alcohol to a minor? Could they perhaps charge the sperm donor for the experiment with rape? Inquiring minds want to know.
It costs about $250,000 to raise a child to 18 in the United States. The bright lights of the anti-woman movement want to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, and they say they will support her during that time because the “life” she carries is sacred. There’s two things, at least, wrong there, besides forcing a woman to bend to their will (fat old white men like doing that in their wet dreams). For one, when the woman finally gives birth to a baby she can’t afford, and who will live in poverty because for whatever reason she can’t make enough money to support the child, the same anti-woman crowd will crucify her and make her life an even worse hell, and not a bit of useful support will they give. (Oh, they’ll give thoughts and prayers. Ever eat a thought or a prayer? Ever pay rent with a thought or a prayer?) For another thing, let’s dispense with the idea that human life, in any form, size, age or shape, is sacred. Look around. Nothing sacred about it. We slaughter each other every day by the hundreds and thousands. We treat people like dirt if they aren’t the same color as us, or speak a different language, or eat different foods, or whatever the hell. Look at the vile way the anti-woman crowd treats women who need or want to end a pregnancy. They’re the same crowd that tell women their rape is their fault, that incest is their fault, that beatings at the hands of scumbag men is their fault. The churches, of all denominations, who tell us life is sacred have a long history of slaughtering and torturing humans, including children. So when these anti-woman babblers say life is sacred, I can never decide whether to laugh out loud or spit in their faces. Let’s face it, the anti-woman crowd aren’t doing this anti-abortion gig because they believe life is sacred, no, they’re doing it because it gives them a sense of power and it allows them to demean, degrade, and humiliate women without having to actually beat them up. And the women in that crowd, they’re just sad and pathetic. And sort of vicious. Judas at least made thirty pieces of silver. These women get for their betrayal of women’s health care, of women’s freedom, nothing but power over other women. As for what to do about all this, y’all remember the verses about 'First they came for the socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist"? Remember that? Well you had better raise your voices and get out into the streets and besiege your local, state, and Federal politicians, because these bastards are coming for you, for your family, for your friends, for our country. Count on it, motherfucker, count on it!
5 Likes
So - does SCOTUS take aim at Loving v. Virginia in the near future? Odd how that one didn’t make Clarence’s hit list.
That man is odious.
2 Likes
Isn’t it though?
Even though the same constitutional theory (substantive due process) that undergirds Loving is what undergirds Roe, Obergefell, Lawrence, and all the others Thomas caterwauls about in his bullshit opinion in Dodd, as being wrongly adjudicated.
1 Like
What a bunch of dung.
Yeah it’s all the Democrats fault.
GFY.
2 Likes
You’re part of the problem. Just keep going to that same old dried up well.
You GFY too.
Actually, what I think she has done is declare herself the leader of the “Reborn Republican” party (or maybe they’re going to go with something like the Lincoln Party to capture all those good vibes). Whatever they call it, she’s absolutely positioned herself front and center as the leader of the “Non Crazy Conservatives” (so, will “NCC” become a thing in the next cycle to let them distance themselves from the “Truly Batshit Regressives” or “TBR”?)
I will willingly concede that the future is completely obscured by fog and noise, but assuming we do survive as a country then the TBR folks will have to be gone, ceding their side of the field to the NCC folks going forward.
As a betting man (hint, I have a math degree so I don’t bet) my money would be on the NCC folks, but then I’ve been told I have a chemical imbalance of the brain that leads to unwarranted and irrational optimism… 
3 Likes
Wrong. You’re the problem since the only way to fix this (near and long term) is to elect more pro-choice filibuster reform Democrats). To the Senate and House.
But your pathetic “both sides suck” attitude and views are why we lost in 2016 and why Roe is gone.
Congratulations troll.
3 Likes
Wrong. Why haven’t Democrats codified Roe when they have had ample opportunities to do so with all of those pro-choice Democrats you speak of? I am very happy with the Democrats I get to vote for here in California. Those are the kind of Democrats that I will precinct walk and phone bank for. Too bad there aren’t more of them in other states.
But honestly, I am sick to death of cozy, clueless fools like you who say “when they go low, we go high” (i.e. Merrick Garland), or "you just gotta vote harder. Keep punching the air you dangerously out of touch fool, see where that gets you. I guess you’ll have buff arms in the Gilead era. Oh and your smug self righteousness.
I hope this next election can be won overwhelmingly but given the systematic suppression of the vote, the unhinged propaganda in so many states, and delusional democrats like you who think that the rules of 30 years ago still apply with fascism, I’m not feeling good.
Yes, having seen your comments it’s quite clear that anyone that has a different view from you is labeled as a “troll.” I’m not that immature but in the meantime I can tell you once again to GFY.
Here’s the thing…Liberals are creative. We will find ways to undermine this Talabanistic “win” that the rightwing zealots think is the end of this fight. We know how to sterilize surgical tools. We know how to smuggle pills across state lines. It may take some time to get the processes up and running, but it will get done!
1 Like