And Clinton is likely a not great example anyways since Biden is much more conservative.
TryCatcher on
+5
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Clinton, polls, etc. are not on topic.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
+2
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Texas tried to replace Planned Parenthood with state-supported faith-based anti-abortion "pregnancy centers."
Would you be surprised to find out that it was all a big grift? That they took millions of dollars from the state to "serve" a couple thousand women in place of the tens of thousands that had been getting medical care from Planned Parenthood and other legitimate medical providers? That the head of the group tried to justify the massive waste, the dismantling of necessary public services, and things like her extravagant shopping sprees by going "Well, shucks, I thought it'd be easy! Also Jesus and stuff."
Texas tried to replace Planned Parenthood with state-supported faith-based anti-abortion "pregnancy centers."
Would you be surprised to find out that it was all a big grift? That they took millions of dollars from the state to "serve" a couple thousand women in place of the tens of thousands that had been getting medical care from Planned Parenthood and other legitimate medical providers? That the head of the group tried to justify the massive waste, the dismantling of necessary public services, and things like her extravagant shopping sprees by going "Well, shucks, I thought it'd be easy! Also Jesus and stuff."
Yeah, it went exactly as you'd expect.
That is just flat outrageous. And it further shows that the conservative folks really do not care about women. They only care about there being fewer abortions. And money of course.
And they are willfully ignorant of the single digit % that abortion makes up of Planned Parenthood's services.
The article I read framed it as the donor advocated boycotting the school because more than half the students pay out of state tuition. It would cost the school a lot of money were the boycott to work but I don't think it's tuition necessarily worth the 21 million dollars.
It probably is worth hard stroking all the other donors who want abortion to be illegal though. There's no real angle the school can use here that isn't picking the wrong side.
Texas tried to replace Planned Parenthood with state-supported faith-based anti-abortion "pregnancy centers."
Would you be surprised to find out that it was all a big grift? That they took millions of dollars from the state to "serve" a couple thousand women in place of the tens of thousands that had been getting medical care from Planned Parenthood and other legitimate medical providers? That the head of the group tried to justify the massive waste, the dismantling of necessary public services, and things like her extravagant shopping sprees by going "Well, shucks, I thought it'd be easy! Also Jesus and stuff."
Yeah, it went exactly as you'd expect.
That is just flat outrageous. And it further shows that the conservative folks really do not care about women. They only care about there being fewer abortions. And money of course.
And they are willfully ignorant of the single digit % that abortion makes up of Planned Parenthood's services.
If this president gets to put the National Guard at the border than the next president gets to order them to set up abortion clinics.
3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Speaking of Alabama, rapists have parental rights except in the case of parents raping their own children. Courts will send women to jail if they refuse to let the rapists see the children they forced on the women. There had been a bill this year to change that, but then it got amended to just the one exception I listed above - which the governor didn't even sign, just allowed to become law by not vetoing it. She didn't care.
Texas tried to replace Planned Parenthood with state-supported faith-based anti-abortion "pregnancy centers."
Would you be surprised to find out that it was all a big grift? That they took millions of dollars from the state to "serve" a couple thousand women in place of the tens of thousands that had been getting medical care from Planned Parenthood and other legitimate medical providers? That the head of the group tried to justify the massive waste, the dismantling of necessary public services, and things like her extravagant shopping sprees by going "Well, shucks, I thought it'd be easy! Also Jesus and stuff."
Yeah, it went exactly as you'd expect.
That is just flat outrageous. And it further shows that the conservative folks really do not care about women. They only care about there being fewer abortions. And money of course.
And they are willfully ignorant of the single digit % that abortion makes up of Planned Parenthood's services.
I feel like it's part of role-playing that your enemy is a Satanic Baby-Killer.
When they swap in their fake bullshit clinics they don't bother with any of the other services, because they've chosen to never acknowledge they exist. After all they're fighting against the armies of darkness! They can't possibly be providing people with necessary care, right?
Texas tried to replace Planned Parenthood with state-supported faith-based anti-abortion "pregnancy centers."
Would you be surprised to find out that it was all a big grift? That they took millions of dollars from the state to "serve" a couple thousand women in place of the tens of thousands that had been getting medical care from Planned Parenthood and other legitimate medical providers? That the head of the group tried to justify the massive waste, the dismantling of necessary public services, and things like her extravagant shopping sprees by going "Well, shucks, I thought it'd be easy! Also Jesus and stuff."
Yeah, it went exactly as you'd expect.
That is just flat outrageous. And it further shows that the conservative folks really do not care about women. They only care about there being fewer abortions. And money of course.
And they are willfully ignorant of the single digit % that abortion makes up of Planned Parenthood's services.
I feel like it's part of role-playing that your enemy is a Satanic Baby-Killer.
When they swap in their fake bullshit clinics they don't bother with any of the other services, because they've chosen to never acknowledge they exist. After all they're fighting against the armies of darkness! They can't possibly be providing people with necessary care, right?
The business culture that surrounds right wing and religious culture is a bag of snakes. It’s scam artists competing against frauds.
Speaking of Alabama, rapists have parental rights except in the case of parents raping their own children. Courts will send women to jail if they refuse to let the rapists see the children they forced on the women. There had been a bill this year to change that, but then it got amended to just the one exception I listed above - which the governor didn't even sign, just allowed to become law by not vetoing it. She didn't care.
The cruelty is the point.
It's one thing to force the baby on the woman after rape, now you're giving parental rights and forcing the woman to interact and treat the rapists as the father of the baby.
Well done Alabama, more reasons to never go there.
After a 9-month review, President Donald Trump’s administration is moving to eliminate some federally funded research that relies on fetal tissue from elective abortions and to more tightly regulate the rest.
...
Under the new policy, extramural researchers who submit applications that pass scientific review and score high enough to be funded will now encounter a new and time-consuming layer of review. Under a procedure described in a 2006 law that governs NIH policy, HHS will need to announce in the Federal Register that it plans to assemble an ethics advisory board to review each proposed grant and invite public nominations for that board. The board would be made up of 14 to 20 people from various backgrounds, including at least one theologian, one ethicist, one physician, and one attorney.
Welcome to the 1400s, yall.
So someone is going to have to explain to me how the fuck that doesn't run right afoul of separation of church and state?
No, don't worry, it's fine.
They'll make sure it's a Christian fundamentalist theologian, so we good.
Future presidents should form a list of all the most out there religions possible to fulfil the role of theologian for this council; Zoroastrian, Asatru, Wicca, various first nations mythos, pastafarians... just have a whole slew of religious beliefs that aren't from the abrahamic philosophies.
+6
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
edited June 2019
Recent news:
Illinois is now expanding abortion access, removing restrictions set back in 1975 which included provisions for spousal consent and waiting periods. The newly signed law states that women have a "fundamental right" to abortion.
Illinois is now expanding abortion access, removing restrictions set back in 1975 which included provisions for spousal consent and waiting periods. The newly signed law states that women have a "fundamental right" to abortion.
While I'm ecstatic for the women in these three states, there's a small shitty part of me that's disappointed Maine went this route, solely because it lets Susan Collins off the hook. Her vote on Kavanaugh means less, because for at least a small block of voters, "Hey, I got my rights (or the rights of women I care about), don't care anymore".
Don't get me wrong, in a choice between Mainers getting abortion protections at the state level, and Susan Collins losing her seat, I'd choose the former. But I'd rather both, and I'm pretty sure the former is going to help prevent the latter.
If she'd just stand on her fucking principles, I wouldn't care. She can be Maine Republican on corporate power, taxation, environment, LGBT, guns, whatever, I'll disagree, but understand. But the rank fucking hypocrisy of her stances on women's issues, and her voting record, infuriates me.
Illinois is now expanding abortion access, removing restrictions set back in 1975 which included provisions for spousal consent and waiting periods. The newly signed law states that women have a "fundamental right" to abortion.
While I'm ecstatic for the women in these three states, there's a small shitty part of me that's disappointed Maine went this route, solely because it lets Susan Collins off the hook. Her vote on Kavanaugh means less, because for at least a small block of voters, "Hey, I got my rights (or the rights of women I care about), don't care anymore".
Don't get me wrong, in a choice between Mainers getting abortion protections at the state level, and Susan Collins losing her seat, I'd choose the former. But I'd rather both, and I'm pretty sure the former is going to help prevent the latter.
If she'd just stand on her fucking principles, I wouldn't care. She can be Maine Republican on corporate power, taxation, environment, LGBT, guns, whatever, I'll disagree, but understand. But the rank fucking hypocrisy of her stances on women's issues, and her voting record, infuriates me.
I see this as the opposite. It shows how badly Collins fucked up on both a moral and political level. It gives me hope that she's done.
Texas tried to replace Planned Parenthood with state-supported faith-based anti-abortion "pregnancy centers."
Would you be surprised to find out that it was all a big grift? That they took millions of dollars from the state to "serve" a couple thousand women in place of the tens of thousands that had been getting medical care from Planned Parenthood and other legitimate medical providers? That the head of the group tried to justify the massive waste, the dismantling of necessary public services, and things like her extravagant shopping sprees by going "Well, shucks, I thought it'd be easy! Also Jesus and stuff."
Yeah, it went exactly as you'd expect.
That is just flat outrageous. And it further shows that the conservative folks really do not care about women. They only care about there being fewer abortions. And money of course.
And they are willfully ignorant of the single digit % that abortion makes up of Planned Parenthood's services.
They don't actually care about this, or they'd do any of the myriad things to reduce demand for abortions - comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, parental leave, support for single parents, raising the minimum wage, M4A, taking decisive action to fight rape, etc etc.
The GOP playbook with this as with drugs and any number of issues is to come out against the thing, to also be against literally every solution to the perceived problem, and then to cast the victims as public enemy number one while enacting policies to punish them under the guise that if we just make it awful enough to be them, they'll go away.
Texas tried to replace Planned Parenthood with state-supported faith-based anti-abortion "pregnancy centers."
Would you be surprised to find out that it was all a big grift? That they took millions of dollars from the state to "serve" a couple thousand women in place of the tens of thousands that had been getting medical care from Planned Parenthood and other legitimate medical providers? That the head of the group tried to justify the massive waste, the dismantling of necessary public services, and things like her extravagant shopping sprees by going "Well, shucks, I thought it'd be easy! Also Jesus and stuff."
Yeah, it went exactly as you'd expect.
That is just flat outrageous. And it further shows that the conservative folks really do not care about women. They only care about there being fewer abortions. And money of course.
And they are willfully ignorant of the single digit % that abortion makes up of Planned Parenthood's services.
They don't actually care about this, or they'd do any of the myriad things to reduce demand for abortions - comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, parental leave, support for single parents, raising the minimum wage, M4A, taking decisive action to fight rape, etc etc.
The GOP playbook with this as with drugs and any number of issues is to come out against the thing, to also be against literally every solution to the perceived problem, and then to cast the victims as public enemy number one while enacting policies to punish them under the guise that if we just make it awful enough to be them, they'll go away.
That's the kicker. Most of the loudest antiabortion advocates think it's the woman's fault she got pregnant in the first place, even if many know better than to say it. Either by daring to have sex without intending to have kids in the first place, or by enticing red-blooded men into raping with their scandalous clothes.
It's not about stopping abortions, it's about scaring women to not have sex so can be virgins for their lucky future husband, and punishing those who do.
If you want to act in a manner not in line with being a good Christian woman you deserve to be punished not enabled etc. These guys are absolutely fundamentalists. It enrages them that women can go out, sleep with who they want, and get an abortion if they get pregnant. They want their way of life to be the only way of life. It's the culture war.
Texas tried to replace Planned Parenthood with state-supported faith-based anti-abortion "pregnancy centers."
Would you be surprised to find out that it was all a big grift? That they took millions of dollars from the state to "serve" a couple thousand women in place of the tens of thousands that had been getting medical care from Planned Parenthood and other legitimate medical providers? That the head of the group tried to justify the massive waste, the dismantling of necessary public services, and things like her extravagant shopping sprees by going "Well, shucks, I thought it'd be easy! Also Jesus and stuff."
Yeah, it went exactly as you'd expect.
That is just flat outrageous. And it further shows that the conservative folks really do not care about women. They only care about there being fewer abortions. And money of course.
And they are willfully ignorant of the single digit % that abortion makes up of Planned Parenthood's services.
Abortion is not the issue, you're glossing over the problem and ceding ground here. Conservatives want Christianity to be the law of the land and govern all aspects of life, especially issues concerning sex, gender, and reproduction. This even goes to why Barr is covering for Trump, he has historically stated (repeatedly) that unless abortion/gay marriage/sex issues are controlled by Christians it's discrimination against Christians.
Until people are willing to deal with, call out, and attack the root cause of Christianity the cancer will continue to spread.
Headline in the URL pretty much says it all. She's the one who got shot but she's being charged for starting the argument. Not the person who shot her. And the state has no concern for either adult, just the fetus.
I know I say this sarcastically a lot, but I am actually shocked here.
I'm not. Though less because she's a woman, and more because she's black. I know it's not directly related, the Marissa Alexander (in the same state that had George f'n Zimmerman) showed that gender and race are massive considerations for who gets prosecuted, and who doesn't.
If Marissa had been white, or a white man interacting with another man, she wouldn't have been charged.
If Marshae was white, she wouldn't have been charged. If Marshae was white, I doubt very much if the shooter (another black woman) would have not been indicted.
As soon as I saw the article and it being Alabama, I knew it was a black woman being charged before I even clicked the link.
+10
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I know I say this sarcastically a lot, but I am actually shocked here.
I'm not. Though less because she's a woman, and more because she's black. I know it's not directly related, the Marissa Alexander (in the same state that had George f'n Zimmerman) showed that gender and race are massive considerations for who gets prosecuted, and who doesn't.
If Marissa had been white, or a white man interacting with another man, she wouldn't have been charged.
If Marshae was white, she wouldn't have been charged. If Marshae was white, I doubt very much if the shooter (another black woman) would have not been indicted.
As soon as I saw the article and it being Alabama, I knew it was a black woman being charged before I even clicked the link.
I'm all for ragging on Alabama, but this isn't that outside the norm.
Basically if she had instigated a fight, with a her kid in a stroller who died she would face the similar charges-felony murder. And I know lots of other states have statues that make killing a fetus a crime. I know in WI, I've seen drunk drivers charged with two counts for killing a pregnant woman. Or people charged with homicide for beating on a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage.
As for the shooter not being charged, without real information on the case I could imagine situations where a grand jury would feel she was justified in fearing for her life. "Outside of a dollar store" is up there with "In a Waffle House" or "CITYNAME, Florida", where I'd believe just about anything you told me was in a police report.
I'm all for ragging on Alabama, but this isn't that outside the norm.
Basically if she had instigated a fight, with a her kid in a stroller who died she would face the similar charges-felony murder. And I know lots of other states have statues that make killing a fetus a crime. I know in WI, I've seen drunk drivers charged with two counts for killing a pregnant woman. Or people charged with homicide for beating on a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage.
As for the shooter not being charged, without real information on the case I could imagine situations where a grand jury would feel she was justified in fearing for her life. "Outside of a dollar store" is up there with "In a Waffle House" or "CITYNAME, Florida", where I'd believe just about anything you told me was in a police report.
Do you feel it is a just way of operating? Should this woman be indicted for being shot?
I'm all for ragging on Alabama, but this isn't that outside the norm.
Basically if she had instigated a fight, with a her kid in a stroller who died she would face the similar charges-felony murder. And I know lots of other states have statues that make killing a fetus a crime. I know in WI, I've seen drunk drivers charged with two counts for killing a pregnant woman. Or people charged with homicide for beating on a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage.
As for the shooter not being charged, without real information on the case I could imagine situations where a grand jury would feel she was justified in fearing for her life. "Outside of a dollar store" is up there with "In a Waffle House" or "CITYNAME, Florida", where I'd believe just about anything you told me was in a police report.
I don't....really know what to say to this other than "fucking wow, dude"
And unless the woman had a gun and was threatening the other person with it, this is some real gross victim-blaming. It shouldn't really matter if she instigated a dispute, she was the one who has shot. The line from the police about "the only victim here is the unborn baby" is some GROSS ASS SHIT. The woman was shot by someone else. She is the victim, the unborn baby is ALSO a victim. The person doing the shooting is the perpetrator. Not the mother.
As if reading a poll was a substitute for conviction and integrity. Is the Hillary Clinton problem again.
I don't think Hillary is the first politician to try to be a leader for the people she claimed to want to be a leader for.
I don't like Biden, I don't trust his new stance(s) here. but that doesn't mean I think changing positions based on polling is wrong. Personally I'd be honest about the positions change and positions it as being swayed by (all the reasons x policy is good) because I don't think anything else works BUT, changing positions isn't a Clinton problem or a problem at all, imo.
I'm all for ragging on Alabama, but this isn't that outside the norm.
Basically if she had instigated a fight, with a her kid in a stroller who died she would face the similar charges-felony murder. And I know lots of other states have statues that make killing a fetus a crime. I know in WI, I've seen drunk drivers charged with two counts for killing a pregnant woman. Or people charged with homicide for beating on a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage.
As for the shooter not being charged, without real information on the case I could imagine situations where a grand jury would feel she was justified in fearing for her life. "Outside of a dollar store" is up there with "In a Waffle House" or "CITYNAME, Florida", where I'd believe just about anything you told me was in a police report.
I don't....really know what to say to this other than "fucking wow, dude"
And unless the woman had a gun and was threatening the other person with it, this is some real gross victim-blaming. It shouldn't really matter if she instigated a dispute, she was the one who has shot. The line from the police about "the only victim here is the unborn baby" is some GROSS ASS SHIT. The woman was shot by someone else. She is the victim, the unborn baby is ALSO a victim. The person doing the shooting is the perpetrator. Not the mother.
That's not generally how self defense works in the US. The assailant can be a threat to life or GBH without themselves having a firearm and the defensive use of a firearm can still be justified (e.g. blunt force trauma to the head with or without a weapon). There's no way to say whether it was justified or not without more details.
Re Marissa Alexander: arguing that she was only charged because she wasn't white is a gross misrepresentation of the case. She was violating a court order barring her from contact with her estranged husband, left the scene where she alleged that her husband assaulted her, returned with a firearm (something that AFAIK isn't legal anywhere, that is you can't leave the scene of your assault effectively ending it then return at a later time with a firearm to confront the person who attacked you) and then claimed to have fired a "warning shot" at her estranged husband (unlawful discharge of a firearm at the time, and also a stupid thing to do in general). And in Florida there are mandatory minimums for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime (ten years for using a firearm, 20 for discharging, 25 to life for hitting someone).
I'm all for ragging on Alabama, but this isn't that outside the norm.
Basically if she had instigated a fight, with a her kid in a stroller who died she would face the similar charges-felony murder. And I know lots of other states have statues that make killing a fetus a crime. I know in WI, I've seen drunk drivers charged with two counts for killing a pregnant woman. Or people charged with homicide for beating on a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage.
As for the shooter not being charged, without real information on the case I could imagine situations where a grand jury would feel she was justified in fearing for her life. "Outside of a dollar store" is up there with "In a Waffle House" or "CITYNAME, Florida", where I'd believe just about anything you told me was in a police report.
I don't....really know what to say to this other than "fucking wow, dude"
And unless the woman had a gun and was threatening the other person with it, this is some real gross victim-blaming. It shouldn't really matter if she instigated a dispute, she was the one who has shot. The line from the police about "the only victim here is the unborn baby" is some GROSS ASS SHIT. The woman was shot by someone else. She is the victim, the unborn baby is ALSO a victim. The person doing the shooting is the perpetrator. Not the mother.
That's not generally how self defense works in the US. The assailant can be a threat to life or GBH without themselves having a firearm and the defensive use of a firearm can still be justified (e.g. blunt force trauma to the head with or without a weapon). There's no way to say whether it was justified or not without more details.
Re Marissa Alexander: arguing that she was only charged because she wasn't white is a gross misrepresentation of the case. She was violating a court order barring her from contact with her estranged husband, left the scene where she alleged that her husband assaulted her, returned with a firearm (something that AFAIK isn't legal anywhere, that is you can't leave the scene of your assault effectively ending it then return at a later time with a firearm to confront the person who attacked you) and then claimed to have fired a "warning shot" at her estranged husband (unlawful discharge of a firearm at the time, and also a stupid thing to do in general). And in Florida there are mandatory minimums for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime (ten years for using a firearm, 20 for discharging, 25 to life for hitting someone).
That is a lot more relevant context than just "she started an argument". Like, if she brought a (the?) gun and shot it first, that's kind of a completely different situation from what was originally presented.
I'm all for ragging on Alabama, but this isn't that outside the norm.
Basically if she had instigated a fight, with a her kid in a stroller who died she would face the similar charges-felony murder. And I know lots of other states have statues that make killing a fetus a crime. I know in WI, I've seen drunk drivers charged with two counts for killing a pregnant woman. Or people charged with homicide for beating on a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage.
As for the shooter not being charged, without real information on the case I could imagine situations where a grand jury would feel she was justified in fearing for her life. "Outside of a dollar store" is up there with "In a Waffle House" or "CITYNAME, Florida", where I'd believe just about anything you told me was in a police report.
I don't....really know what to say to this other than "fucking wow, dude"
And unless the woman had a gun and was threatening the other person with it, this is some real gross victim-blaming. It shouldn't really matter if she instigated a dispute, she was the one who has shot. The line from the police about "the only victim here is the unborn baby" is some GROSS ASS SHIT. The woman was shot by someone else. She is the victim, the unborn baby is ALSO a victim. The person doing the shooting is the perpetrator. Not the mother.
That's not generally how self defense works in the US. The assailant can be a threat to life or GBH without themselves having a firearm and the defensive use of a firearm can still be justified (e.g. blunt force trauma to the head with or without a weapon). There's no way to say whether it was justified or not without more details.
Re Marissa Alexander: arguing that she was only charged because she wasn't white is a gross misrepresentation of the case. She was violating a court order barring her from contact with her estranged husband, left the scene where she alleged that her husband assaulted her, returned with a firearm (something that AFAIK isn't legal anywhere, that is you can't leave the scene of your assault effectively ending it then return at a later time with a firearm to confront the person who attacked you) and then claimed to have fired a "warning shot" at her estranged husband (unlawful discharge of a firearm at the time, and also a stupid thing to do in general). And in Florida there are mandatory minimums for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime (ten years for using a firearm, 20 for discharging, 25 to life for hitting someone).
That is a lot more relevant context than just "she started an argument". Like, if she brought a (the?) gun and shot it first, that's kind of a completely different situation from what was originally presented.
I'm all for ragging on Alabama, but this isn't that outside the norm.
Basically if she had instigated a fight, with a her kid in a stroller who died she would face the similar charges-felony murder. And I know lots of other states have statues that make killing a fetus a crime. I know in WI, I've seen drunk drivers charged with two counts for killing a pregnant woman. Or people charged with homicide for beating on a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage.
As for the shooter not being charged, without real information on the case I could imagine situations where a grand jury would feel she was justified in fearing for her life. "Outside of a dollar store" is up there with "In a Waffle House" or "CITYNAME, Florida", where I'd believe just about anything you told me was in a police report.
I don't....really know what to say to this other than "fucking wow, dude"
And unless the woman had a gun and was threatening the other person with it, this is some real gross victim-blaming. It shouldn't really matter if she instigated a dispute, she was the one who has shot. The line from the police about "the only victim here is the unborn baby" is some GROSS ASS SHIT. The woman was shot by someone else. She is the victim, the unborn baby is ALSO a victim. The person doing the shooting is the perpetrator. Not the mother.
That's not generally how self defense works in the US. The assailant can be a threat to life or GBH without themselves having a firearm and the defensive use of a firearm can still be justified (e.g. blunt force trauma to the head with or without a weapon). There's no way to say whether it was justified or not without more details.
Re Marissa Alexander: arguing that she was only charged because she wasn't white is a gross misrepresentation of the case. She was violating a court order barring her from contact with her estranged husband, left the scene where she alleged that her husband assaulted her, returned with a firearm (something that AFAIK isn't legal anywhere, that is you can't leave the scene of your assault effectively ending it then return at a later time with a firearm to confront the person who attacked you) and then claimed to have fired a "warning shot" at her estranged husband (unlawful discharge of a firearm at the time, and also a stupid thing to do in general). And in Florida there are mandatory minimums for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime (ten years for using a firearm, 20 for discharging, 25 to life for hitting someone).
That is a lot more relevant context than just "she started an argument". Like, if she brought a (the?) gun and shot it first, that's kind of a completely different situation from what was originally presented.
Marissa Alexander is not the person whom the article was about.
Posts
Biden gets a lot of snotty "well, he's adopting the positions that you wanted" defenders, like, for example, Nate Bronze:
As if reading a poll was a substitute for conviction and integrity. Is the Hillary Clinton problem again.
Funny, because I've also heard that what Clinton did wrong was *not* reading enough polls and ignoring the Rust Belt.
Can't win.
I'm always happy to accept Damascene conversions to my side.
No answer that I could give beats this one, so there you go:
And Clinton is likely a not great example anyways since Biden is much more conservative.
Would you be surprised to find out that it was all a big grift? That they took millions of dollars from the state to "serve" a couple thousand women in place of the tens of thousands that had been getting medical care from Planned Parenthood and other legitimate medical providers? That the head of the group tried to justify the massive waste, the dismantling of necessary public services, and things like her extravagant shopping sprees by going "Well, shucks, I thought it'd be easy! Also Jesus and stuff."
Yeah, it went exactly as you'd expect.
That is just flat outrageous. And it further shows that the conservative folks really do not care about women. They only care about there being fewer abortions. And money of course.
And they are willfully ignorant of the single digit % that abortion makes up of Planned Parenthood's services.
University of Alabama returned 2q.5 million dollar donation and removed their name after urging students to boycott the Alabama law.
Something about a college defending the state law doesn't sit well with me.
It probably is worth hard stroking all the other donors who want abortion to be illegal though. There's no real angle the school can use here that isn't picking the wrong side.
Fewer legal abortions.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The cruelty is the point.
I feel like it's part of role-playing that your enemy is a Satanic Baby-Killer.
When they swap in their fake bullshit clinics they don't bother with any of the other services, because they've chosen to never acknowledge they exist. After all they're fighting against the armies of darkness! They can't possibly be providing people with necessary care, right?
The business culture that surrounds right wing and religious culture is a bag of snakes. It’s scam artists competing against frauds.
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con
It's one thing to force the baby on the woman after rape, now you're giving parental rights and forcing the woman to interact and treat the rapists as the father of the baby.
Well done Alabama, more reasons to never go there.
Future presidents should form a list of all the most out there religions possible to fulfil the role of theologian for this council; Zoroastrian, Asatru, Wicca, various first nations mythos, pastafarians... just have a whole slew of religious beliefs that aren't from the abrahamic philosophies.
Illinois is now expanding abortion access, removing restrictions set back in 1975 which included provisions for spousal consent and waiting periods. The newly signed law states that women have a "fundamental right" to abortion.
Maine has also just increased abortion access with a new law allowing advanced practice registered nurses and physicians assistants to perform the procedure or prescribe drugs. Physicians previously were the only ones allowed to, which restricted access outside the major cities.
Vermont's Republican governor just signed a law also declaring abortion to be a fundamental right and protecting the rights to contraception, sterilization, and family planning.
Better states than Alabama, all of them.
While I'm ecstatic for the women in these three states, there's a small shitty part of me that's disappointed Maine went this route, solely because it lets Susan Collins off the hook. Her vote on Kavanaugh means less, because for at least a small block of voters, "Hey, I got my rights (or the rights of women I care about), don't care anymore".
Don't get me wrong, in a choice between Mainers getting abortion protections at the state level, and Susan Collins losing her seat, I'd choose the former. But I'd rather both, and I'm pretty sure the former is going to help prevent the latter.
If she'd just stand on her fucking principles, I wouldn't care. She can be Maine Republican on corporate power, taxation, environment, LGBT, guns, whatever, I'll disagree, but understand. But the rank fucking hypocrisy of her stances on women's issues, and her voting record, infuriates me.
I see this as the opposite. It shows how badly Collins fucked up on both a moral and political level. It gives me hope that she's done.
They don't actually care about this, or they'd do any of the myriad things to reduce demand for abortions - comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, parental leave, support for single parents, raising the minimum wage, M4A, taking decisive action to fight rape, etc etc.
The GOP playbook with this as with drugs and any number of issues is to come out against the thing, to also be against literally every solution to the perceived problem, and then to cast the victims as public enemy number one while enacting policies to punish them under the guise that if we just make it awful enough to be them, they'll go away.
That's the kicker. Most of the loudest antiabortion advocates think it's the woman's fault she got pregnant in the first place, even if many know better than to say it. Either by daring to have sex without intending to have kids in the first place, or by enticing red-blooded men into raping with their scandalous clothes.
It's not about stopping abortions, it's about scaring women to not have sex so can be virgins for their lucky future husband, and punishing those who do.
Abortion is not the issue, you're glossing over the problem and ceding ground here. Conservatives want Christianity to be the law of the land and govern all aspects of life, especially issues concerning sex, gender, and reproduction. This even goes to why Barr is covering for Trump, he has historically stated (repeatedly) that unless abortion/gay marriage/sex issues are controlled by Christians it's discrimination against Christians.
Until people are willing to deal with, call out, and attack the root cause of Christianity the cancer will continue to spread.
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/06/woman-indicted-in-shooting-death-of-her-unborn-child-charges-against-shooter-dismissed.html
Headline in the URL pretty much says it all. She's the one who got shot but she's being charged for starting the argument. Not the person who shot her. And the state has no concern for either adult, just the fetus.
Not about controlling women my ass.
Victim blaming culture gone even more amok than usual.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'm not. Though less because she's a woman, and more because she's black. I know it's not directly related, the Marissa Alexander (in the same state that had George f'n Zimmerman) showed that gender and race are massive considerations for who gets prosecuted, and who doesn't.
If Marissa had been white, or a white man interacting with another man, she wouldn't have been charged.
If Marshae was white, she wouldn't have been charged. If Marshae was white, I doubt very much if the shooter (another black woman) would have not been indicted.
As soon as I saw the article and it being Alabama, I knew it was a black woman being charged before I even clicked the link.
well yes, that was the assumption
Jane Coaston is a reporter at Vox.
A woman is being indicted on manslaughter charges after being shot in the stomach leading to the loss of a fetus.
This is ultimately where these laws are going, criminalize minority people at all costs.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Basically if she had instigated a fight, with a her kid in a stroller who died she would face the similar charges-felony murder. And I know lots of other states have statues that make killing a fetus a crime. I know in WI, I've seen drunk drivers charged with two counts for killing a pregnant woman. Or people charged with homicide for beating on a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage.
As for the shooter not being charged, without real information on the case I could imagine situations where a grand jury would feel she was justified in fearing for her life. "Outside of a dollar store" is up there with "In a Waffle House" or "CITYNAME, Florida", where I'd believe just about anything you told me was in a police report.
Do you feel it is a just way of operating? Should this woman be indicted for being shot?
I don't....really know what to say to this other than "fucking wow, dude"
And unless the woman had a gun and was threatening the other person with it, this is some real gross victim-blaming. It shouldn't really matter if she instigated a dispute, she was the one who has shot. The line from the police about "the only victim here is the unborn baby" is some GROSS ASS SHIT. The woman was shot by someone else. She is the victim, the unborn baby is ALSO a victim. The person doing the shooting is the perpetrator. Not the mother.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I don't think Hillary is the first politician to try to be a leader for the people she claimed to want to be a leader for.
I don't like Biden, I don't trust his new stance(s) here. but that doesn't mean I think changing positions based on polling is wrong. Personally I'd be honest about the positions change and positions it as being swayed by (all the reasons x policy is good) because I don't think anything else works BUT, changing positions isn't a Clinton problem or a problem at all, imo.
The Neo Doctrine.
That's not generally how self defense works in the US. The assailant can be a threat to life or GBH without themselves having a firearm and the defensive use of a firearm can still be justified (e.g. blunt force trauma to the head with or without a weapon). There's no way to say whether it was justified or not without more details.
Re Marissa Alexander: arguing that she was only charged because she wasn't white is a gross misrepresentation of the case. She was violating a court order barring her from contact with her estranged husband, left the scene where she alleged that her husband assaulted her, returned with a firearm (something that AFAIK isn't legal anywhere, that is you can't leave the scene of your assault effectively ending it then return at a later time with a firearm to confront the person who attacked you) and then claimed to have fired a "warning shot" at her estranged husband (unlawful discharge of a firearm at the time, and also a stupid thing to do in general). And in Florida there are mandatory minimums for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime (ten years for using a firearm, 20 for discharging, 25 to life for hitting someone).
That is a lot more relevant context than just "she started an argument". Like, if she brought a (the?) gun and shot it first, that's kind of a completely different situation from what was originally presented.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
That's also a different case.
(hah ninja edit)
Marissa Alexander is not the person whom the article was about.