Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[Bugzilla]

Wow. what a mix of legit and petty excuses.



Some legit, mostly bogus.


What really stuck out at me was Jessica. Really Jess? You're going to kill your baby because its dad is an a-hole? Sins of the father much? Baby needs to die for no other reason than dad is an a-hole? My jaw literally hung open reading that. Wow.

Maybe if she did it in the a-hole instead of with an a-hole, she wouldn’t need an abortion.

 

[churchmouse]

I don't think they can all be out of touch with reality.

If so just hang it up now we've lost.

Oh we have lost.

 

[jamil]

They aren't the only ones.

The following have also committed to paying for travel expenses to some degree or another.

Goldman Sach's
Walt Disney
Meta (Facebook)
JP Morgan Chase
Amazon
Microsoft
Apple
Citigroup
Tesla
Lyft
Netflix
Mastercard
Yelp
Levi Strauss
Buzzfeed
Zillow
Conde Nast
Comcast - NBC
Warner Bros Discovery
Nike
Kroger

I'm certain as the days pass it will grow significantly.

These US companies will cover travel costs for employees who need an abortion

After the Supreme Court ruled on Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade, corporate giants from a range of industries pledged to provide support and financial assistance for employees — and, in some cases, their dependents — seeking abortions in states that outlaw the procedure.

www.cnn.com

Here are the companies covering abortion travel costs for employees post-Roe

A number of US companies have expanded healthcare plans to include travel expenses for abortion services after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade

news.yahoo.com

These companies will cover abortion travel costs for employees

Several of the nation’s largest companies are willing to reimburse employees who travel out of state to legally access abortion services. Businesses will face increasing pressure to offer that ben…

thehill.com

Regards,

Doug

Oh, now that ESG is a thing, corporations will lose social credit for NOT having that policy.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Well, that’s not actually their worldview thought. That’s really not a lot different from claiming that gun owners have the blood of slain school children on their hands. Obviously, that’s silly. Gun owners don’t have tjat worldview. In our worldview, the only person with blood on their hands is the shooter, but in the case of the cops, when their negligent actions increase the body count beyond what it could have been.

So with most people who support abortion, they don’t believe it’s a death sentence. And most people who do support abortion, they do believe there is a point in the pregnancy where it is murder.

I think it’s important to get your viewpoint right. Anti-gun zealots feel their disgust for gun owners is justified because gun owners don’t care about victims of mass shootings. That kind of contempt in the wrong person brings a high potential for justifying violence.

Getting it right on the other side is just as important. What kind a feelings can you justify if you believe they’re murdering babies? I’m not saying you, but that’s the exact motivation of people who resort to violence against abortion clinics. Worst case it breads justifying violent actions. Best case it gives you contempt for people who may not believve the thing you feel justifies that contempt.

Did you read the post I was replying to?

I could be interpreting wrong, but this guy really seemed to be implying that he thought killing off unwanted criminals and poor people, regardless of whether they were born yet or not, was the best way to reduce suffering in the world.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Oh, now that ESG is a thing, corporations will lose social credit for NOT having that policy.

This is a good point. I hadn’t considered this angle yet but yep, I’d say you’re probably correct.

 

[jamil]

Merrick Garland gave a statement on the decision. Maybe a little unprecedented in his rebuke.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today released the following statement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al.:

www.justice.gov

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

The list will grow. Hey folks, this is what "letting the people decide" looks like. The freedom to decide includes the freedom to vote with your feet. Like I said before, the actual impact to abortion may end up not being much. Certain states will set out to become abortion mills, and yer crazy if you don't think liberal philanthropies are going to set up "Overground Railroads" with funding to get women to these destinations. And we won't be talking carpools. It will be plane tickets, etc.

On the other hand, I also don't think the number of women taking them up on the "Abortion is Healthcare" offer is going to be gigantic, either. Not much will change either way, because birth control pills have made abortion much less of a "thing." Neither is it going to result in an increase in the "domestic supply of infants," because it's long been demonstrated that when women carry to term, for whatever reason, they tend to keep the baby - not put it up for abortion. This is why white families spend beaucoup bucks adopting kids from Russia. In the past, this was not the case. Having a pregnant daughter, for example, was a crushing humiliation for a family, almost akin to having a homosexual kid. The daughter got shipped away to the Sister Mary Camp to have the kid and put it up for adoption. If an affluent white family wanted to adopt a caucasian kid, they didn't need to go to Russia to do so, because the unavailability of abortion combined with a powerful social stigma generated a reliable trickle of adoptable kids from the "catholic nun camps." An extra mouth to feed was considered a liability, so there was a social mechanism for redistributing the kids to responsible families who "deserved" them and could provide for them. That's not going to be the case today. Today, knocked-up daughters are about as remarkable as a speeding ticket, and an extra mouth to feed is a meal ticket entitling you to more government benefits. There's no stigma, therefore, they don't get shipped off to Camp to place the child with a deserving adoptive family when born. Today, when women go to the trouble to carry children to term, they tend to keep them. Whether they have resources to care for them or not.

Wonder what happens when someone transitioning from male to female in Utah claims every six months that they need to go to California for an abortion?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Merrick Garland gave a statement on the decision. Maybe a little unprecedented in his rebuke.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today released the following statement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al.:

www.justice.gov

I sniff more billable hours in the wind here…

 

[jamil]

In our system it is probably most appropriate to have the individual states determine abortion policy for themselves. In that respect, this decision makes decent legal and even some degree of ideological sense. However, I think the unintended consequences will be rather more severe than many realize.

Forcing a woman to give birth does not make an unwanted pregnancy wanted...it turns an unwanted pregnancy into an unwanted child.

The world does not need any more unwanted children, if you need evidence of this fact look no further than the army of unwanted bastards that fill our public schools, courts, and jails.

Criminalized abortion increases suffering. It increases crime. It decreases upward economic mobility for the poor and working classes.

I want to live in a world where fewer women need to end their pregnancy, not one where fewer women who have that need to are able to.

This will probably be my last post.

Thank you for your replies, my foray into this forum has been…eye opening.

Did you read the post I was replying to?

I could be interpreting wrong, but this guy really seemed to be implying that he thought killing off unwanted criminals and poor people, regardless of whether they were born yet or not, was the best way to reduce suffering in the world.

Yes, I did. He didn't say that. You inferred it.

All he implied is that unwanted children tend to be more likely to grow up criminals, or otherwise some drain on society. If you have the worldview that abortion, at any stage is murder, then I can see where you might characterize his worldview as being unwanted is a crime punishable by death. He never referred to being unwanted as a crime. He didn't put it in terms of being punished, especially by death. The "being punished by death" is your worldview.

The only pro-abortion people I know of who have a worldview that might regard aborting unwanted pregnancies as something close to a death sentence, are fringe libertarian Ayn Rand acolytes, or far left feminists, where they view the unborn in unwanted pregnancies as parasites.

A part of his worldview that I think is quite open to criticism, and something he's actually stated explicitly, is, 1) he acknowledged the unborn has a right to life, but that the mother's right to choose supersedes the unborn child's right to life at any stage of the pregnancy. I think this is a viewpoint inconsistent with human rights.

It's absurd to believe that there is a significantly physical difference in the child the instant before birth and the instant after, such that it has attained a physical humanity commensurate with a greater right to life after birth than before. So what we're talking about is the mother's right not to go through with the birth for whatever reason, weighed against the child's right to live. Is life really a lesser right than choosing by whim? I can see the priority of her right to choose being enhanced if the mother has a real expectation of being irreversibly harmed if she goes through with it, especially if that risk of harm is fatal. But when he expressed his view, he said for any reason. I think it would be more consistent with a belief in human rights just to say that at no point during pregnancy does the unborn have any rights at all. But then he'd be like one of those nutty Ayn Rand acolytes.

 

[jamil]

I sniff more billable hours in the wind here…

I can't help but wonder what all is encoded in “The Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom."

 

[jamil]

In Merrick Garland's statement he said he supports people's 1A rights to protest the ruling, but that he'd not tolerate violence.

I mean. This isn't violence. Right?

Arizona abortion protest: Police release tear gas, lawmakers ‘held hostage’ in Senate building

The U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade has sparked a protest in Phoenix, Arizona, where protesters attempted to breach the state Senate building and created a dangerous situation for lawmakers.

www.foxnews.com

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[cg21]

They aren't the only ones.

The following have also committed to paying for travel expenses to some degree or another.

Goldman Sach's
Walt Disney
Meta (Facebook)
JP Morgan Chase
Amazon
Microsoft
Apple
Citigroup
Tesla
Lyft
Netflix
Mastercard
Yelp
Levi Strauss
Buzzfeed
Zillow
Conde Nast
Comcast - NBC
Warner Bros Discovery
Nike
Kroger

I'm certain as the days pass it will grow significantly.

These US companies will cover travel costs for employees who need an abortion

After the Supreme Court ruled on Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade, corporate giants from a range of industries pledged to provide support and financial assistance for employees — and, in some cases, their dependents — seeking abortions in states that outlaw the procedure.

www.cnn.com

Here are the companies covering abortion travel costs for employees post-Roe

A number of US companies have expanded healthcare plans to include travel expenses for abortion services after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade

news.yahoo.com

These companies will cover abortion travel costs for employees

Several of the nation’s largest companies are willing to reimburse employees who travel out of state to legally access abortion services. Businesses will face increasing pressure to offer that ben…

thehill.com

Regards,

Doug

Great use their money and not my tax dollars.

 

[jamil]

I don't have a problem with companies providing this as part of their benefits. My only objection would be if it's that they're trying to earn ESG cred. Bending to it only validates it. ESG is really a top-down tool to manipulate social compliance.

 

[ancjr]

If I have the right worldview, I can justify any action.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Yes, I did. He didn't say that. You inferred it.

All he implied is that unwanted children tend to be more likely to grow up criminals, or otherwise some drain on society. If you have the worldview that abortion, at any stage is murder, then I can see where you might characterize his worldview as being unwanted is a crime punishable by death. He never referred to being unwanted as a crime. He didn't put it in terms of being punished, especially by death. The "being punished by death" is your worldview.

The only pro-abortion people I know of who have a worldview that might regard aborting unwanted pregnancies as something close to a death sentence, are fringe libertarian Ayn Rand acolytes, or far left feminists, where they view the unborn in unwanted pregnancies as parasites.

A part of his worldview that I think is quite open to criticism, and something he's actually stated explicitly, is, 1) he acknowledged the unborn has a right to life, but that the mother's right to choose supersedes the unborn child's right to life at any stage of the pregnancy. I think this is a viewpoint inconsistent with human rights.

It's absurd to believe that there is a significantly physical difference in the child the instant before birth and the instant after, such that it has attained a physical humanity commensurate with a greater right to life after birth than before. So what we're talking about is the mother's right not to go through with the birth for whatever reason, weighed against the child's right to live. Is life really a lesser right than choosing by whim? I can see the priority of her right to choose being enhanced if the mother has a real expectation of being irreversibly harmed if she goes through with it, especially if that risk of harm is fatal. But when he expressed his view, he said for any reason. I think it would be more consistent with a belief in human rights just to say that at no point during pregnancy does the unborn have any rights at all. But then he'd be like one of those nutty Ayn Rand acolytes.

I feel like some of what you're saying must be informed by you having seen some of his previous posts that I didn't see or don't remember. In the post I was specifically replying to, he made no reference one way or another to rights either of the mother or the unborn child, that I could see. It honestly came across to me as: "Unwanted children cause suffering in the world, ergo, killing unwanted children is good." As you noted, there are actually people in this world who believe such a thing (unfortunately, I've met some in person.)

 

[KLB]

I don't have a problem with companies providing this as part of their benefits. My only objection would be if it's that they're trying to earn ESG cred. Bending to it only validates it. ESG is really a top-down tool to manipulate social compliance.

A lot of those companies won't have to worry about paying anything, since their offices tend to be in D strongholds.

 

[jamil]

A lot of those companies won't have to worry about paying anything, since their offices tend to be in D strongholds.

Many of those companies have employees scattered over many states. Companies with retail presence all over the country in particular. Like Dick's, or Kroger.

 

[jamil]

I feel like some of what you're saying must be informed by you having seen some of his previous posts that I didn't see or don't remember. In the post I was specifically replying to, he made no reference one way or another to rights either of the mother or the unborn child, that I could see. It honestly came across to me as: "Unwanted children cause suffering in the world, ergo, killing unwanted children is good."

Yes. He expressed his views pretty early in this thread. Maybe days after you and I had conversed about it. I recall that his views were that women had the right to choose right up until birth, but he agreed that the unborn had rights too. Just that the mother's right to choose, for any reason, superseded the unborn child's rights.

If I understand his position correctly, I don't think he would agree with the characterization of it being a punishment by killing the child.

As you noted, there are actually people in this world who believe such a thing (unfortunately, I've met some in person.)

I think the most inhumane viewpoint is that an unwanted child is a parasite. The ************ who believes that should never be given any political/social power.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Gutfeld: Rulings on guns and abortion in one week is the Super Bowl of Liberal Meltdowns​

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in landmark opinion

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively ending recognition of a constitutional right to abortion and giving individual states the power to allow, limit, or ban the practice altogether.

www.foxnews.com