Texas might checkmate abortion!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? I (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) am fine with that. The only hope for those of us on the left is to embrace a truly Federalist government, in which states control domestic policy and civil rights, while the Federal government is only responsible for national defense and interstate commerce. The idea that we progressives are somehow going to enshrine anti-racism, gender rights, and environmental action in the South via court order is a fantasy. All its done is to breed backlash. We need to let the former Confederacy make its own (backwards) domestic laws in exchange for freedom to pursue progressive policies in other parts of the country. I think a model for our country can be Spain, where autonomous cultural regions are given jurisdiction over most social policies. Is it perfect? No. But it's a much better choice than turning into Syria or Rwanda.

I think I’m warming to this idea too. Instead of the United States of America, let’s just be the States of America. What works for Rhode Island doesn’t work for Mississippi and that’s ok. If you want easier access to guns and less restrictive gun laws, move to Montana. If you want all your neighbors to be pro-life, move to Alabama. If you’re gay, move to Vermont. Maybe that would create less strife/animosity. Opposite sides of these arguments will never convince the other side of anything, so let birds of a feather flock together.

So how will the President be elected? Which party?


That’s kinda how the country started. Sounds like you’re more Republican than you think. Outside of the bill of rights, national defense, and interstate matters the rest should be left up to the states. However, the poor in the poor states wanted some of the dough from the rich states, and in general the public didn’t want to be afraid traveling from rich state to crime ridden, desperate poor state so some leveling and federal funding programs were created. Then power mongers came to DC … and national pride due to a civil war and two world wars … and we are where we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? I (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) am fine with that. The only hope for those of us on the left is to embrace a truly Federalist government, in which states control domestic policy and civil rights, while the Federal government is only responsible for national defense and interstate commerce. The idea that we progressives are somehow going to enshrine anti-racism, gender rights, and environmental action in the South via court order is a fantasy. All its done is to breed backlash. We need to let the former Confederacy make its own (backwards) domestic laws in exchange for freedom to pursue progressive policies in other parts of the country. I think a model for our country can be Spain, where autonomous cultural regions are given jurisdiction over most social policies. Is it perfect? No. But it's a much better choice than turning into Syria or Rwanda.

I think I’m warming to this idea too. Instead of the United States of America, let’s just be the States of America. What works for Rhode Island doesn’t work for Mississippi and that’s ok. If you want easier access to guns and less restrictive gun laws, move to Montana. If you want all your neighbors to be pro-life, move to Alabama. If you’re gay, move to Vermont. Maybe that would create less strife/animosity. Opposite sides of these arguments will never convince the other side of anything, so let birds of a feather flock together.

So how will the President be elected? Which party?

That’s kinda how the country started. Sounds like you’re more Republican than you think. Outside of the bill of rights, national defense, and interstate matters the rest should be left up to the states. However, the poor in the poor states wanted some of the dough from the rich states, and in general the public didn’t want to be afraid traveling from rich state to crime ridden, desperate poor state so some leveling and federal funding programs were created. Then power mongers came to DC … and national pride due to a civil war and two world wars … and we are where we are.

The reason that this doesn’t work is that states affect one another in ways that are impossible to deal with without a larger strategy.

For example, Pennsylvania pollutes it’s rivers and then Maryland has to deal with a destroyed Chesapeake bay.

[Anonymous]

The ironic thing is that this law is going to cause some abortions that might not otherwise have happened. The law is forcing Texas women to decide immediately upon learning of their pregnancies whether they want to terminate. For a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, that is the time she is likely to be most panicked about whether she can handle that pregnancy. If she had the luxury of even a few weeks to think through her decision, figure out how she could continue the pregnancy and raise the child, she might decide to keep the pregnancy rather than have an abortion. But since Texas is forcing women to choose before they have the ability to think it through, a lot of women will just get the abortion for fear of losing the window.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? I (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) am fine with that. The only hope for those of us on the left is to embrace a truly Federalist government, in which states control domestic policy and civil rights, while the Federal government is only responsible for national defense and interstate commerce. The idea that we progressives are somehow going to enshrine anti-racism, gender rights, and environmental action in the South via court order is a fantasy. All its done is to breed backlash. We need to let the former Confederacy make its own (backwards) domestic laws in exchange for freedom to pursue progressive policies in other parts of the country. I think a model for our country can be Spain, where autonomous cultural regions are given jurisdiction over most social policies. Is it perfect? No. But it's a much better choice than turning into Syria or Rwanda.

I think I’m warming to this idea too. Instead of the United States of America, let’s just be the States of America. What works for Rhode Island doesn’t work for Mississippi and that’s ok. If you want easier access to guns and less restrictive gun laws, move to Montana. If you want all your neighbors to be pro-life, move to Alabama. If you’re gay, move to Vermont. Maybe that would create less strife/animosity. Opposite sides of these arguments will never convince the other side of anything, so let birds of a feather flock together.

So how will the President be elected? Which party?

That’s kinda how the country started. Sounds like you’re more Republican than you think. Outside of the bill of rights, national defense, and interstate matters the rest should be left up to the states. However, the poor in the poor states wanted some of the dough from the rich states, and in general the public didn’t want to be afraid traveling from rich state to crime ridden, desperate poor state so some leveling and federal funding programs were created. Then power mongers came to DC … and national pride due to a civil war and two world wars … and we are where we are.

The reason that this doesn’t work is that states affect one another in ways that are impossible to deal with without a larger strategy.

For example, Pennsylvania pollutes it’s rivers and then Maryland has to deal with a destroyed Chesapeake bay.

DP. Perhaps we should give Maryland the right to sue Pennsylvania for that pollution in a way that really matters. If your one state is polluting another, the state being polluted should be allowed to file a class action on behalf of all affected residents of the state against the polluting state for not imposing and enforcing regulations to prevent cross-border pollution. Perhaps when polluting states have to pay billions out of their own budgets, they’ll start to take it seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ironic thing is that this law is going to cause some abortions that might not otherwise have happened. The law is forcing Texas women to decide immediately upon learning of their pregnancies whether they want to terminate. For a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, that is the time she is likely to be most panicked about whether she can handle that pregnancy. If she had the luxury of even a few weeks to think through her decision, figure out how she could continue the pregnancy and raise the child, she might decide to keep the pregnancy rather than have an abortion. But since Texas is forcing women to choose before they have the ability to think it through, a lot of women will just get the abortion for fear of losing the window.

So in a way, the forced birth monsters are getting what they want: control over women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ironic thing is that this law is going to cause some abortions that might not otherwise have happened. The law is forcing Texas women to decide immediately upon learning of their pregnancies whether they want to terminate. For a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, that is the time she is likely to be most panicked about whether she can handle that pregnancy. If she had the luxury of even a few weeks to think through her decision, figure out how she could continue the pregnancy and raise the child, she might decide to keep the pregnancy rather than have an abortion. But since Texas is forcing women to choose before they have the ability to think it through, a lot of women will just get the abortion for fear of losing the window.

So in a way, the forced birth monsters are getting what they want: control over women.

Pretty much. Probably many more women will have abortions than they otherwise would.

At the same time, they are encouraging not so smart people to not get vaccinated or wear masks, and women who are pregnant with Covid are much more likely to have stillbirths or die themselves.

Not sure what the ultimate endgame is, but it's not respect for "life."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ironic thing is that this law is going to cause some abortions that might not otherwise have happened. The law is forcing Texas women to decide immediately upon learning of their pregnancies whether they want to terminate. For a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, that is the time she is likely to be most panicked about whether she can handle that pregnancy. If she had the luxury of even a few weeks to think through her decision, figure out how she could continue the pregnancy and raise the child, she might decide to keep the pregnancy rather than have an abortion. But since Texas is forcing women to choose before they have the ability to think it through, a lot of women will just get the abortion for fear of losing the window.

So in a way, the forced birth monsters are getting what they want: control over women.

Pretty much. Probably many more women will have abortions than they otherwise would.

At the same time, they are encouraging not so smart people to not get vaccinated or wear masks, and women who are pregnant with Covid are much more likely to have stillbirths or die themselves.

Not sure what the ultimate endgame is, but it's not respect for "life."

It’s a Christo-fascist society they’re after. Think 1840s, but with smart phones and more government control to make sure they get their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
You know what? I (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) am fine with that. The only hope for those of us on the left is to embrace a truly Federalist government, in which states control domestic policy and civil rights, while the Federal government is only responsible for national defense and interstate commerce. The idea that we progressives are somehow going to enshrine anti-racism, gender rights, and environmental action in the South via court order is a fantasy. All its done is to breed backlash. We need to let the former Confederacy make its own (backwards) domestic laws in exchange for freedom to pursue progressive policies in other parts of the country. I think a model for our country can be Spain, where autonomous cultural regions are given jurisdiction over most social policies. Is it perfect? No. But it's a much better choice than turning into Syria or Rwanda.


I think I’m warming to this idea too. Instead of the United States of America, let’s just be the States of America. What works for Rhode Island doesn’t work for Mississippi and that’s ok. If you want easier access to guns and less restrictive gun laws, move to Montana. If you want all your neighbors to be pro-life, move to Alabama. If you’re gay, move to Vermont. Maybe that would create less strife/animosity. Opposite sides of these arguments will never convince the other side of anything, so let birds of a feather flock together.


So how will the President be elected? Which party?



That’s kinda how the country started. Sounds like you’re more Republican than you think. Outside of the bill of rights, national defense, and interstate matters the rest should be left up to the states. However, the poor in the poor states wanted some of the dough from the rich states, and in general the public didn’t want to be afraid traveling from rich state to crime ridden, desperate poor state so some leveling and federal funding programs were created. Then power mongers came to DC … and national pride due to a civil war and two world wars … and we are where we are.


The reason that this doesn’t work is that states affect one another in ways that are impossible to deal with without a larger strategy.

For example, Pennsylvania pollutes it’s rivers and then Maryland has to deal with a destroyed Chesapeake bay.


DP. Perhaps we should give Maryland the right to sue Pennsylvania for that pollution in a way that really matters. If your one state is polluting another, the state being polluted should be allowed to file a class action on behalf of all affected residents of the state against the polluting state for not imposing and enforcing regulations to prevent cross-border pollution. Perhaps when polluting states have to pay billions out of their own budgets, they’ll start to take it seriously.

Sounds like a lot of ideas . . . more lawyers and more bank for lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
You know what? I (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) am fine with that. The only hope for those of us on the left is to embrace a truly Federalist government, in which states control domestic policy and civil rights, while the Federal government is only responsible for national defense and interstate commerce. The idea that we progressives are somehow going to enshrine anti-racism, gender rights, and environmental action in the South via court order is a fantasy. All its done is to breed backlash. We need to let the former Confederacy make its own (backwards) domestic laws in exchange for freedom to pursue progressive policies in other parts of the country. I think a model for our country can be Spain, where autonomous cultural regions are given jurisdiction over most social policies. Is it perfect? No. But it's a much better choice than turning into Syria or Rwanda.


I think I’m warming to this idea too. Instead of the United States of America, let’s just be the States of America. What works for Rhode Island doesn’t work for Mississippi and that’s ok. If you want easier access to guns and less restrictive gun laws, move to Montana. If you want all your neighbors to be pro-life, move to Alabama. If you’re gay, move to Vermont. Maybe that would create less strife/animosity. Opposite sides of these arguments will never convince the other side of anything, so let birds of a feather flock together.


So how will the President be elected? Which party?



That’s kinda how the country started. Sounds like you’re more Republican than you think. Outside of the bill of rights, national defense, and interstate matters the rest should be left up to the states. However, the poor in the poor states wanted some of the dough from the rich states, and in general the public didn’t want to be afraid traveling from rich state to crime ridden, desperate poor state so some leveling and federal funding programs were created. Then power mongers came to DC … and national pride due to a civil war and two world wars … and we are where we are.


The reason that this doesn’t work is that states affect one another in ways that are impossible to deal with without a larger strategy.

For example, Pennsylvania pollutes it’s rivers and then Maryland has to deal with a destroyed Chesapeake bay.


DP. Perhaps we should give Maryland the right to sue Pennsylvania for that pollution in a way that really matters. If your one state is polluting another, the state being polluted should be allowed to file a class action on behalf of all affected residents of the state against the polluting state for not imposing and enforcing regulations to prevent cross-border pollution. Perhaps when polluting states have to pay billions out of their own budgets, they’ll start to take it seriously.

Sounds like a lot of ideas . . . more lawyers and more bank for lawyers.

And if the lawsuit drags out for a decade or more then the money will not take away the cancer in our bodies or bring the fish back to life.

Don’t we already have liability laws? Who do I sue for all of the PCBs in the water that make it unsafe to eat any of the fish I catch these days? What if the company responsible has long gone out of business?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ironic thing is that this law is going to cause some abortions that might not otherwise have happened. The law is forcing Texas women to decide immediately upon learning of their pregnancies whether they want to terminate. For a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, that is the time she is likely to be most panicked about whether she can handle that pregnancy. If she had the luxury of even a few weeks to think through her decision, figure out how she could continue the pregnancy and raise the child, she might decide to keep the pregnancy rather than have an abortion. But since Texas is forcing women to choose before they have the ability to think it through, a lot of women will just get the abortion for fear of losing the window.

So in a way, the forced birth monsters are getting what they want: control over women.

Pretty much. Probably many more women will have abortions than they otherwise would.

At the same time, they are encouraging not so smart people to not get vaccinated or wear masks, and women who are pregnant with Covid are much more likely to have stillbirths or die themselves.

Not sure what the ultimate endgame is, but it's not respect for "life."

It’s a Christo-fascist society they’re after. Think 1840s, but with smart phones and more government control to make sure they get their way.

That's the only thing that makes sense.