The Frankish Reich

You're right - that's straight from ... the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, which, if you care to use it as an interpretative source for the CONSTITUTION, may suggest (rather more strongly, I'd say) that the "liberty" interest prevails over the "potential" life interest.

I forgot about that - Ron Watkins, Candidate.

I guess that's why abortion rights activists call if pro-choice.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-creator-q-returns-after-nearly-two-year-hiatus?scrolla=5eb6d68b7fedc32c19ef33b4 Now if only there were someone here who could help me decipher this ... Somewhere in a garden level apartment in Pacoima perhaps?

All good points, but I would go a bit further - why do we always fall back on "endangers her life?" What if there's no threat to her life, but what if she has severe morning sickness? I looked it up because, well, I'm not a woman: it typically begins at 6 weeks, is at its worst at 9 weeks, and can continue a few weeks beyond that. So we tell women: "You are required to undergo 6 weeks of misery even though a simple procedure could restore you to full health and happiness almost immediately." I don't see how the existence of a mere potential for a human life more than half a year later can outweigh the woman's interest in her own health and happiness.

Excellent point. It was all so easy for the Republicans when Roe v. Wade offered them protection. Sure, we're pro-life, but its those other partial birth/free abortions for all liberals that are the real extremists. It won't work now. Candidates on the national level will have to answer real questions: do you support a complete and total ban on all abortions? On morning after pill "abortions?" On in vitro fertilization in which 8 eggs are fertilized, one or two are implanted, and the rest disposed of? The old talking points won't work anymore.

You need to spend some more time with cats.

You said it better than I. All very true. It's easy for politicians to pass overbroad laws when they know they're not enforceable. Welcome to the real world.

And so we can have debates about whether a particular fetus is viable. And in Texas, people running to court to try to get an order to stop a D&C or D&S because they suspect the fetus is still "alive." As our friend says: What a mess.

Not to mention men on the hook for child support for a child neither parent wanted.

But, but, but ... I do hate injuries, and I do hope that Tom Brady gets hurt for the year! Is there anything wrong with that? Seriously, what I'm saying is this: there's been a lot of posturing on the Republican side. The "I'm more pro-life than you!" stuff that gets you through the primaries. Roe v. Wade provided these candidates cover. You can vote for things without really thinking through what they mean. Repub Candidate A: "I support a ban on all abortions after 8 weeks." Repub Candidate B: "My opponent is not really pro-life! I support a ban on ALL abortions, from the time of fertilization." Now: so, that in vitro clinic has to close unless it tracks/reports to the state officials that ALL embryos will be implanted in a woman's uterus? Now: so, a Colorado abortion provider is advertising abortion trips from Oklahoma. Are you going to outlaw that? Now: so, 100% of experts attest that the fetus cannot be born alive. Are you going to allow an abortion in those circumstances? Then: Elon Musk - "I'm moving to Texas, the land of the free!" Now: Tesla engineers: "I am not moving to Texas." Repercussions, repercussions. None of which were considered by those blowhard politicians trying to win an election.

Dead fetus = spontaneous abortion, not induced abortion. So, correct. But: nonviable fetus? Severe genetic defect, sure to be "born" stillborn? Illegal to abort that fetus in many states. Make that mom deliver!

Don't accuse Donald Trump* of having "clear dementia." *A reminder that your mentor, your sensei your ... svengali! holds that he is the true President-in-Palm Beach-Exile. Soon to be restored.

Let me ask the defenders of this decision. (And none of us can pretend to have read it yet!) I understand it turns the matter over to the states with no limits ("after 6 weeks of pregnancy", etc.). I know many people, including religious people, with kids born of in vitro fertilization. That will now be illegal in many states. Clinics will have to shut down there and the desperate-to-get-pregnant women (umm, "people" haha) will have to travel for these procedures at even greater expense. Do you think this is a good thing? Do you think women are likely to accept this?

Will this impact his marriage to a man-like creature?

No. I hate the decision. I am pointing out that everything was pointing to the Republicans flipping Congress in November. Now, not so much. This will be an extremely unpopular decision.

The best day for Democrats since both Georgia Senate races went their way in late 2020! Republicans who love Trump because "he put pro-life conservatives on the Court": be careful what you wish for.

Except its not an "investment." It is pure speculation. I suppose some people consider it a hedge, akin to buying gold or Swiss francs when you hold a lot of other dollar or other fiat currency assets. But "investment?" No.

I have college age kids. I'm not gonna say exactly what I did at that age, but suffice to say I wasn't always real careful about what I ingested. My advice to my kids now is way beyond the "just don't do drugs" stuff of my youth. It really is that dangerous now ... you've just got to keep away.

You never know what you might learn by browsing a football fansite! 🍺 Thanks for the fun history lesson. I feel like smoke "treatments" are going to be the next big thing in alternative medicine.

Oh, I agree with that. It’s a far worse experience now, worst in my memory (I went in January). But …. To assess whether there’s any negative impact on the parks, we’ll really need to wait till fall, when those who’d already booked have completed their vacations. There’s a lot of wishful thinking here.

Nobody goes there anymore; it’s always too crowded

That’s what I thought, but the numbers are … weird. The best data we have says: - pre-COVID (Feb 2020): 63.4% - May 2022: 62.3%

I hope you’re sitting down because … I agree. We got a bit carried away with the whole “entanglement” thing in the religion cases. I see no constitutional bar to funding (through its students) a school operated by a religious organization. Even one with a religious orientation. One caveat: a hard-and-fast no funding to religious schools rule is easy to administer. It’s religious? It doesn’t get state funding. Not even by subsidizing the tuition it’s students pay. The Maine rule announced today? That brings us more litigation. It requires state oversight over curricula and minimum standards. Does a strict orthodox school that teaches only scripture and interpretations of scripture (but no math, science, world/US history, etc) qualify? I say no. Same with a strict Koranic school - the type the Taliban believes is the only true education. We are subsidizing students (and, in turn, their schools) to ensure access to the basic educational requirements we think every school should have. 30 hours of reading, writing, arithmetic per week with 3 hours of religion (of your choice)? Fine. The reverse? Not so fine.

Huh?