Maybe they should focus on more churchy stuff and less on reproduction
Really, they're missing a golden opportunity. If they allowed priests and bishops to get married and have kids, and for that matter allowed women to be priests at all, they might be able to talk. Maybe. As long as you claim to be celibate and chaste, though, what the fuck business is it of yours?
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited April 2012
Yup, that's an easy discrimination case.
Laughably easy.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I'm not a fan of the church's stance on these things, but the idea that IVF and abortion are both bad because they destroy viable embryos (and thus ensouled human life) is internally consistent. In my social circle there is more flak against the church for NOT condemning IVF. Now to be completely consistent they need to okay the use of contraceptives.
Except that's not the issue. The issue is the church pressing its beliefs on secular employees.
There was just a big SCOTUS case saying this sort of thing was, more or less, perfectly legal.
The reason she might win this one is only because apparently infertility is considered a disability under the law, which may change the case somewhat.
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I'm not a fan of the church's stance on these things, but the idea that IVF and abortion are both bad because they destroy viable embryos (and thus ensouled human life) is internally consistent. In my social circle there is more flak against the church for NOT condemning IVF. Now to be completely consistent they need to okay the use of contraceptives.
Except that's not the issue. The issue is the church pressing its beliefs on secular employees.
There was just a big SCOTUS case saying this sort of thing was, more or less, perfectly legal.
The reason she might win this one is only because apparently infertility is considered a disability under the law, which may change the case somewhat.
The disability thing won't matter after Hosanna-Tabor; that case was about a disability as well (narcolepsy), plus the fact that some genius came up with the idea to make it "against our religion" to sue the church.
If she was actually a secular employee (more like a janitor than a priest) then she might have a case.
The disability thing won't matter after Hosanna-Tabor; that case was about a disability as well (narcolepsy), plus the fact that some genius came up with the idea to make it "against our religion" to sue the church.
If she was actually a secular employee (more like a janitor than a priest) then she might have a case.
"It's against our religion to get sued!" doesn't work. The issue with the recent SCOTUS decision is that religious groups can do whatever they want re their *ministerial* employees. A woman can't sue the Catholic church for refusing to hire her as a priest, say.
It basically means that any time a religious organization does something shitty to its secular employees, the employee will have to deal with a bullshit motion claiming they were 'ministerial'.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
The ruling, by Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversed a lower court ruling Monday in favor of the family planning organization. The decision on Tuesday means the state is free for now to enforce a new rule banning Planned Parenthood from the Women's Health Program, Texas officials said.
You know, most of the time I'm loath to say "judicial activism" or "that judge just was motivated by personal bias", because most judges DO try to reach the correct result. But this is the 5th Circuit.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
And people wonder why I ran away from Texas as fast as I could. As soon as the opportunity arose to move back home, I was gone. That place is really the hellhole people make it out to be.
The ruling, by Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversed a lower court ruling Monday in favor of the family planning organization. The decision on Tuesday means the state is free for now to enforce a new rule banning Planned Parenthood from the Women's Health Program, Texas officials said.
"Texas has a long history of protecting life (of the unborn)," spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in a statement.
The (of the unborn) makes the joke
ed
"Texas has a long history of pursuing justice (for white people)."
I mean, yay for Governor Dayton and all, but state Sen. Gazelka seriously goes on about Viagra like it's a fucking fertility treatment, completely ignoring the (ahem) recreational uses of it.
"I note that you sponsored the restriction of the use of Ru-486, but still think that Viagra should be unregulated. Can you explain that, Senator?"
"BONERS = LIFE"
And people wonder why I ran away from Texas as fast as I could. As soon as the opportunity arose to move back home, I was gone. That place is really the hellhole people make it out to be.
And now I know why the Mrs. crossed out every single one of my potential job applications that had "Texas" anywhere on it.
UPDATE: 8:03 p.m. -- Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas attorney general's office, said state attorneys were not comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization, but rather were citing a Supreme Court case in the brief that happened to be about a terrorist organization.
"Texas did not state -– and does not believe –- that Planned Parenthood is a terrorist organization or comparable to one. Period," Strickland said. "When parties to lawsuits are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law, they resort to the same outrageous rhetoric Planned Parenthood is using today to distract from the real issues."
Jesus christ do you think he understood any of what he just said? any of it? I think I am done reading the internet for a while.
Edit: This is actually their new attack plan isnt it? when someone calls them on lying for distraction, they claim their attackers are changing the narrative right? its the "NU UH, YOU" defense? My boss claimed this when people were outraged by rush calling that woman who said it was too expensive to have sex a slut. "why do they have to change the narrative instead of arguing about the facts her testimony?" "How are they changing the narritive when rush changed it by calling her a slut instead of arguing what she said was wrong? They are directly reacting to him". "omg I dont see how that has anything to do with it". we then had to have a discussion because he didnt think it was offensive that rush used the word slut. He backed down really quickly when he realized he said that out loud.
DiannaoChong on
0
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
UPDATE: 8:03 p.m. -- Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas attorney general's office, said state attorneys were not comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization, but rather were citing a Supreme Court case in the brief that happened to be about a terrorist organization.
"Texas did not state -– and does not believe –- that Planned Parenthood is a terrorist organization or comparable to one. Period," Strickland said. "When parties to lawsuits are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law, they resort to the same outrageous rhetoric Planned Parenthood is using today to distract from the real issues."
Jesus christ do you think he understood any of what he just said? any of it? I think I am done reading the internet for a while.
Edit: This is actually their new attack plan isnt it? when someone calls them on lying for distraction, they claim their attackers are changing the narrative right? its the "NU UH, YOU" defense? My boss claimed this when people were outraged by rush calling that woman who said it was too expensive to have sex a slut. "why do they have to change the narrative instead of arguing about the facts her testimony?" "How are they changing the narritive when rush changed it by calling her a slut instead of arguing what she said was wrong? They are directly reacting to him". "omg I dont see how that has anything to do with it". we then had to have a discussion because he didnt think it was offensive that rush used the word slut. He backed down really quickly when he realized he said that out loud.
No, that's the kind of thing a first year law student would tell you.
If you are weak on the facts, argue the law
If you are weak on the law, argue the facts
If you are weak on both, pound the podium
Quite frankly I'm inclined to believe him on this particular wrinkle being a non-issue
fuck gendered marketing
0
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
When Alicia Beltran was 12 weeks pregnant, she took herself to a health clinic about a mile from her home in Jackson, Wis., for a prenatal checkup. But what started as a routine visit ended with Beltran eventually handcuffed and shackled in government custody – and at the center of a first-of-its-kind federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state’s fetal protection law.
At the hearing, her lawyers say, the judge told Beltran that an attorney would not be provided for her at that time but that she could seek counsel for her next hearing in the case. And yet, a lawyer had been appointed to represent her fetus.
Not exactly Congress, really. However this is horrifying enough so I'm throwing it in the Congress thread with all the other real life horror stories.
This is fucked up, and I'm crossing my fingers that the supreme court not only hears this but they don't rule like monsters
Supporters of these laws say they are intended to protect unborn children. “Child abuse is child abuse, whether it’s in the womb or out of it,” said Jennifer Mason, communication director for Personhood USA, a non-profit organization seeking personhood status for fetuses. Advocates of fetal personhood claimed a victory in January when the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of unborn children in that state’s child endangerment statute.
Some experts argue that prosecuting pregnant women can ultimately put fetuses at risk, especially when healthcare providers and social workers are the ones reporting women to authorities. There is evidence indicating that women who fear criminal charges or other state intervention are less likely to seek medical care or be honest with their doctors, said Kenneth De Ville, a medical humanities professor at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., who published a study on the Wisconsin law. “Prenatal care is really the best thing you can do to enhance fetal health,” he said. “And you’re driving women away from prenatal care.”
Why can't women just accept that they're the lawful property of the man who generously chooses to use them to make more sons? Life would be so much easier for everyone.
Yeah, that is incredibly fucked up since that law makes it illegal to do basic prenatal care. I'd also imagine that that's going to cause to expecting mothers, who get arrested for this bullshit, higher chance of miscarriage thanks to being denied access to care. Fucking dumbass fundamentalists republicans need to crawl back under the shitty rocks they were living under and let people go about their business, instead of forcing their back-ass-wards views on people in ways that cause more damage.
I can only hope that our current SCOTUS will strike this shit down, but I'm a little worried that five of them will rule in favor of dumbass fundies.
Posts
Really, they're missing a golden opportunity. If they allowed priests and bishops to get married and have kids, and for that matter allowed women to be priests at all, they might be able to talk. Maybe. As long as you claim to be celibate and chaste, though, what the fuck business is it of yours?
Laughably easy.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Didn't scotus just rule against these kinds of cases?
Only with regard to employees the church considers "ministers."
There was just a big SCOTUS case saying this sort of thing was, more or less, perfectly legal.
The reason she might win this one is only because apparently infertility is considered a disability under the law, which may change the case somewhat.
The disability thing won't matter after Hosanna-Tabor; that case was about a disability as well (narcolepsy), plus the fact that some genius came up with the idea to make it "against our religion" to sue the church.
If she was actually a secular employee (more like a janitor than a priest) then she might have a case.
"It's against our religion to get sued!" doesn't work. The issue with the recent SCOTUS decision is that religious groups can do whatever they want re their *ministerial* employees. A woman can't sue the Catholic church for refusing to hire her as a priest, say.
It basically means that any time a religious organization does something shitty to its secular employees, the employee will have to deal with a bullshit motion claiming they were 'ministerial'.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/04/30/texas_planned_parenthood_granted_injunction_against_state_defunding_.html
But the bad news is Texas may just defund the program altogether.
It looks like a higher court has reversed this ruling.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-usa-abortion-texas-idUSBRE8400T320120501
Texas moves fast when it comes to stunting progress.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Texas moves fast when it comes to saving sweet, innocent, doe-eyed little fetuses from ending up in the incinerator.
They had to get back to putting retards in the chair.
You have to be ever vigilant since its always happening.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/texas-ag-planned-parenthood-terrorist_n_1468838.html
Oh look, the pro-lifers are projecting again.
ed
"Texas has a long history of pursuing justice (for white people)."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And how they follow adoption and orphanage workers home and murder them and their wives. Good stuff.
Whoa whoa, what is this in reference to? (Yes I realize it's sarcasm taken as is)
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I mean, yay for Governor Dayton and all, but state Sen. Gazelka seriously goes on about Viagra like it's a fucking fertility treatment, completely ignoring the (ahem) recreational uses of it.
"I note that you sponsored the restriction of the use of Ru-486, but still think that Viagra should be unregulated. Can you explain that, Senator?"
"BONERS = LIFE"
And now I know why the Mrs. crossed out every single one of my potential job applications that had "Texas" anywhere on it.
holy shit their update:
Jesus christ do you think he understood any of what he just said? any of it? I think I am done reading the internet for a while.
Edit: This is actually their new attack plan isnt it? when someone calls them on lying for distraction, they claim their attackers are changing the narrative right? its the "NU UH, YOU" defense? My boss claimed this when people were outraged by rush calling that woman who said it was too expensive to have sex a slut. "why do they have to change the narrative instead of arguing about the facts her testimony?" "How are they changing the narritive when rush changed it by calling her a slut instead of arguing what she said was wrong? They are directly reacting to him". "omg I dont see how that has anything to do with it". we then had to have a discussion because he didnt think it was offensive that rush used the word slut. He backed down really quickly when he realized he said that out loud.
No, that's the kind of thing a first year law student would tell you.
If you are weak on the facts, argue the law
If you are weak on the law, argue the facts
If you are weak on both, pound the podium
Quite frankly I'm inclined to believe him on this particular wrinkle being a non-issue
I fixed this so it's actually pithy. It was annoying me.
whatever
the point was it is a common aphorism, not one maliciously invented by the texas ag office
This is fucked up, and I'm crossing my fingers that the supreme court not only hears this but they don't rule like monsters
Gee whiz I wonder why that might be.
I can only hope that our current SCOTUS will strike this shit down, but I'm a little worried that five of them will rule in favor of dumbass fundies.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.