Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In Texas News:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/abortion-travel-restrictions-texas-republicans-1385437/

Republicans Took a Woman’s Right to Choose. Now They’re Threatening Her Right to Travel
In Washington, Republicans say it’s ridiculous to accuse the GOP of trying to prevent women from traveling to access abortion care. In Texas, that project is already underway

"Democrats on the ground in Texas, though, are wise to this tactic. It’s one they’ve seen before, and they are urging outsiders and national Democrats to pay attention: The effort to restrict a woman’s right to travel across state lines is already underway."

“It has come to our attention that Sidley Austin has decided to reimburse the travel costs of employees who leave Texas to murder their unborn children,” the letter, signed by eleven Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives, read. It went on to threaten the law firm — one of the country’s largest — with criminal prosecution and the disbarment of its partners, among other penalties, over its pledge to reimburse “abortion-related travel and, if necessary, related legal-defense expenses” for its employees.

In the letter, Republicans went on to detail their plans to introduce “legislation next session that will impose additional civil and criminal sanctions on law firms that pay for abortions or abortion travel.”

So the conservative senior partners don't have to pay for their support staff to travel for an abortion. No big law attorney needs a firm to reimburse them for a flight, a hotel room, and a procedure. This was political posturing that would only really benefit the none attorneys. Seems like a win win for Sidley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Texas News:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/abortion-travel-restrictions-texas-republicans-1385437/

Republicans Took a Woman’s Right to Choose. Now They’re Threatening Her Right to Travel
In Washington, Republicans say it’s ridiculous to accuse the GOP of trying to prevent women from traveling to access abortion care. In Texas, that project is already underway

"Democrats on the ground in Texas, though, are wise to this tactic. It’s one they’ve seen before, and they are urging outsiders and national Democrats to pay attention: The effort to restrict a woman’s right to travel across state lines is already underway."

“It has come to our attention that Sidley Austin has decided to reimburse the travel costs of employees who leave Texas to murder their unborn children,” the letter, signed by eleven Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives, read. It went on to threaten the law firm — one of the country’s largest — with criminal prosecution and the disbarment of its partners, among other penalties, over its pledge to reimburse “abortion-related travel and, if necessary, related legal-defense expenses” for its employees.

In the letter, Republicans went on to detail their plans to introduce “legislation next session that will impose additional civil and criminal sanctions on law firms that pay for abortions or abortion travel.”

So much for republicans being pro corporation. They might have a hard time fundraising if they are suing the many large employers who have announced plans to help employees with travel costs.

Did it ever dawn on you that these corporations are funding these politicians? Because they overwhelmingly vote Republican. If thesr subsidies are banned, they get to play it both ways. It appears that they wanted to help, but the big bad government stopped them. Meanwhile they save $ and get their tax breaks. They win either way.

Of course, it used to be corporations were solid donors. But that is changing, and changing quickly.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Is it her? Gotta ask, the smooth brain statements coming out of some of these folks make you wonder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What's her stance on the rapist? I don't even need to know because "life is life" and the preacher's and brothers and fathers of these little girls are "good people" too. I bet she also believes the rapist has parental rights too. Not that they should have to pay child support and lose their rights and have a no contact order with their victim and offspring nope nope nope

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's her stance on the rapist? I don't even need to know because "life is life" and the preacher's and brothers and fathers of these little girls are "good people" too. I bet she also believes the rapist has parental rights too. Not that they should have to pay child support and lose their rights and have a no contact order with their victim and offspring nope nope nope

Well, if that slut wasn’t so tempting, maybe the rapist wouldn’t have raped. He’s just a good person who past a temptation he couldn’t resist. With prayer, Jesus can save him and he can fulfill his rightful role as head of the house.

(To be clear, this is sarcasm, but it is definitely how this crowd thinks)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's her stance on the rapist? I don't even need to know because "life is life" and the preacher's and brothers and fathers of these little girls are "good people" too. I bet she also believes the rapist has parental rights too. Not that they should have to pay child support and lose their rights and have a no contact order with their victim and offspring nope nope nope

Rapists have parental rights in more states than you'd think

[Anonymous]

South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/22/south-carolina-bill-abortion-websites/

“The bill aims to block more than abortion: Provisions would outlaw providing information over the internet or phone about how to obtain an abortion. It would also make it illegal to host a website or “[provide] an internet service” with information that is “reasonably likely to be used for an abortion” and directed at pregnant people in the state.”

Please. Can’t all women, and those who care about us, unite to vote to be treated as a full citizen in this country? If we fight hard for our civil rights, men wouldn’t try to take them away. Heck, let’s start/contribute to a fund to help women with inflation-related concerns. Shouldn’t we fight, and fight hard, to be viewed as a person of sound mind, and not have men determine our fate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/22/south-carolina-bill-abortion-websites/

“The bill aims to block more than abortion: Provisions would outlaw providing information over the internet or phone about how to obtain an abortion. It would also make it illegal to host a website or “[provide] an internet service” with information that is “reasonably likely to be used for an abortion” and directed at pregnant people in the state.”

Please. Can’t all women, and those who care about us, unite to vote to be treated as a full citizen in this country? If we fight hard for our civil rights, men wouldn’t try to take them away. Heck, let’s start/contribute to a fund to help women with inflation-related concerns. Shouldn’t we fight, and fight hard, to be viewed as a person of sound mind, and not have men determine our fate?

We don't have to. This bill is unconstitutional. The fight is already won, here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's her stance on the rapist? I don't even need to know because "life is life" and the preacher's and brothers and fathers of these little girls are "good people" too. I bet she also believes the rapist has parental rights too. Not that they should have to pay child support and lose their rights and have a no contact order with their victim and offspring nope nope nope

But I’m sure she believes that eighteen years-olds should have easy access to assume rifles because “life”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's her stance on the rapist? I don't even need to know because "life is life" and the preacher's and brothers and fathers of these little girls are "good people" too. I bet she also believes the rapist has parental rights too. Not that they should have to pay child support and lose their rights and have a no contact order with their victim and offspring nope nope nope

But I’m sure she believes that eighteen years-olds should have easy access to assume rifles because “life”

assault

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/22/south-carolina-bill-abortion-websites/

“The bill aims to block more than abortion: Provisions would outlaw providing information over the internet or phone about how to obtain an abortion. It would also make it illegal to host a website or “[provide] an internet service” with information that is “reasonably likely to be used for an abortion” and directed at pregnant people in the state.”

Please. Can’t all women, and those who care about us, unite to vote to be treated as a full citizen in this country? If we fight hard for our civil rights, men wouldn’t try to take them away. Heck, let’s start/contribute to a fund to help women with inflation-related concerns. Shouldn’t we fight, and fight hard, to be viewed as a person of sound mind, and not have men determine our fate?

We don't have to. This bill is unconstitutional. The fight is already won, here.

Unconstitutional says who? Our rotten Supreme Court? Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's her stance on the rapist? I don't even need to know because "life is life" and the preacher's and brothers and fathers of these little girls are "good people" too. I bet she also believes the rapist has parental rights too. Not that they should have to pay child support and lose their rights and have a no contact order with their victim and offspring nope nope nope

But I’m sure she believes that eighteen years-olds should have easy access to assume rifles because “life”

assault

I would only buy a cuddle rifle personally.

[Anonymous]