“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what sort of surveillance and control will be implemented for this to happen

If ever there were two men who looked like they only wanted the babies to live long enough so they could eat them.

“If Roe is overturned, there’s already a criminal ban, there’s already an aiding and abetting ban, there’s already a ban on mailing medication abortion,” Sepper said. “In terms of law’s ability to change behavior, they’ve almost filled all the gaps — with the exception of criminalizing the pregnant person involved in an abortion.”

Folks, this will not get any better until the mainstream media starts asking Republicans, repeatedly, if *a woman who gets an abortion* should be charged with murder. The fact they consistently let Republicans slide on this crucial point is completely mystifying to me. When Republicans have to repeatedly go on record saying they are comfortable with the death penalty for women who get abortions—including rape victims—then and only then will things change.

I know there are journalists in the forum. Why do you continue to carry water for GOP? Do your frigging job!

Because they’re stupid, bad at their jobs and enjoy power. That’s literally the only conclusion. The “mainstream” media has gotten dumber and more right wing, like there’s some sort of brain disease spreading amongst them that makes them incredibly lazy and unwilling to crawl up a rapepublican’s butt - but more than willing to talk about absolute nonsense for weeks if it’s bad for Democrats.

This will send us back to the 1800s. I don’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed.

This. We’ve been talking about this for days and still basic errors and lack of understanding regarding the significance of the potential holding in the major papers. And they’re obsessing over the protests (which I don’t support) instead of the fear that women are feeling.

Correct for my tone here because I’m terrible at conveying messages in the right tone and I do not mean this to be hostile in the least, but look at your bolded sentence and tell me that the finger wagging patriarchy doesn’t still live a little inside your head (as it does in almost everyone’s to some degree). These “justices” - and they’re not that anymore, are they? They’re Talibangelicals on a Christianist Sharia tribunal - are literally about to make women slaves. They have affirmed the right to harass women at clinics, they have affirmed the right for forced birthers to harass clinic employees at their homes and they know full well how much violence forced birthers have commit.

The people (women) bringing the noise to these wastrels’ homes are fighting the good fight and I applaud them.

Sorry, I don’t support picketing federal judges homes. Demonstrate somewhere else. This is how civil societies die. And it’s a distraction from the story.

Peaceful demonstrations?

If they are going to dive into the world of politics, they get demonstrations. They should have stuck to law.

It’s still illegal. There is still rule of law. One terrible opinion doesn’t change that. I’m not big on behavior that puts federal judges homes at risk.

It’s literally not.

No it is. You can’t picket the home of a federal judge. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

That law also says you can't do it "in or near a building housing a court of the United States" yet people are protesting at SCOTUS every day. You seem to be missing the key element in that law: it has to be "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty." That's not what a protester is doing, so it is not illegal. But if you think so, then every protester at SCOTUS should also be charged.

Considering the opinion hasn’t been issued it’s a fine line the protesters are walking. The picketing at scotus is tolerated but not close to the doors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a depressing thread. That a group of men (and one loony woman) have the right to take all American women's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy is horrifying. But here we are in 2022, and men are still calling the shots, controlling women.

Because women time and time again vote against their OWN interest. The interest of women.
Yeah, you have some who LOVE this ruling, but the majority don't. But I bet my bottom dollar that come november they will vote an R just like always and say it is becasue of taxes (though Rs want to raise middle class tax) or small business (yet Rs haven't done crap for small business) or education (Rs want to get rid of books that make moms have difficult convos with their kids) or some other BS story the Rs will push on them and they will vote to protect themselves from the 'big bad boogie man' that doesn't exist all the while letting the wolf into their homes and bedrooms without batting an eye.

This reminds me of a cartoon i love. It is an axe asking the forest to vote for him to be ruler because he is just like them, made of WOOD! He would never do anything to hurt them. He is just like them!!

Why should we still have to vote to fight for our human rights? The politicization of abortion is the problem. It should be standard healthcare. I’m a white woman and I have voted Democrat in every election of my life. What has it gotten me? What else can I do?

PP, I hear your frustration. I would flip your framing, you aren’t fighting for your rights, SCOTUS/GOP are TAKING AWAY our rights. Voting for Dems has stopped even more horrible bills passing. Think back on the Trump years. Do we really want to go back to that? And todays GOP are even more unhinged.

I know this is an unsatisfactory response. Believe me, I’m disappointed in Dem Congressional leadership. But then I see leaders like Malloy McMarrow and Katie Porter and I have hope.

The history of this country has been about everyone but property-owning white men needing to fight for their rights...though the rights of non-property owning white men were often granted as a way to further oppress Black men (as opposed to hard-won fights). Most of those fights have been extremely bloody. Read about the suffragettes.

Why should we have to fight for these things? Because that's how power works.

Well the whole point of the American democracy experiment is that literal fighting isn’t required.

The Civil War says hello.

Obviously. But are we saying that the experiment is over or is at another such failure point? I don’t think so.

Suffragettes experienced violence. Civil rights leaders experienced violence. Undocumented immigrants experience violence. Muslim Americans experience violence. Do you seriously htink the Civil War was the last time people had to "literally" fight to be treated as human?

Are you suggesting this needs to get violent?

I'm responding to a PP who seems to think that no one should literally have to fight for their rights in the US and that the last time anyone did was the Civil War. In reality, the history of the US since our founding has been everyone but white men fighting, often literally, for recognition of their rights by the US government.

People are surprised that they should even have to vote to protect their rights, let alone do more than just vote. It takes an incredibly selective and naive understanding of American history to think that this is surprising.

Some people are naive, yes. I’m not sure what you’re adding the conversation by crapping on them. Everyone has turning points in their lives, let this be one for those who took their rights for granted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what sort of surveillance and control will be implemented for this to happen

If ever there were two men who looked like they only wanted the babies to live long enough so they could eat them.

“If Roe is overturned, there’s already a criminal ban, there’s already an aiding and abetting ban, there’s already a ban on mailing medication abortion,” Sepper said. “In terms of law’s ability to change behavior, they’ve almost filled all the gaps — with the exception of criminalizing the pregnant person involved in an abortion.”

Folks, this will not get any better until the mainstream media starts asking Republicans, repeatedly, if *a woman who gets an abortion* should be charged with murder. The fact they consistently let Republicans slide on this crucial point is completely mystifying to me. When Republicans have to repeatedly go on record saying they are comfortable with the death penalty for women who get abortions—including rape victims—then and only then will things change.

I know there are journalists in the forum. Why do you continue to carry water for GOP? Do your frigging job!

Because they’re stupid, bad at their jobs and enjoy power. That’s literally the only conclusion. The “mainstream” media has gotten dumber and more right wing, like there’s some sort of brain disease spreading amongst them that makes them incredibly lazy and unwilling to crawl up a rapepublican’s butt - but more than willing to talk about absolute nonsense for weeks if it’s bad for Democrats.

This will send us back to the 1800s. I don’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed.

This. We’ve been talking about this for days and still basic errors and lack of understanding regarding the significance of the potential holding in the major papers. And they’re obsessing over the protests (which I don’t support) instead of the fear that women are feeling.

Correct for my tone here because I’m terrible at conveying messages in the right tone and I do not mean this to be hostile in the least, but look at your bolded sentence and tell me that the finger wagging patriarchy doesn’t still live a little inside your head (as it does in almost everyone’s to some degree). These “justices” - and they’re not that anymore, are they? They’re Talibangelicals on a Christianist Sharia tribunal - are literally about to make women slaves. They have affirmed the right to harass women at clinics, they have affirmed the right for forced birthers to harass clinic employees at their homes and they know full well how much violence forced birthers have commit.

The people (women) bringing the noise to these wastrels’ homes are fighting the good fight and I applaud them.

Sorry, I don’t support picketing federal judges homes. Demonstrate somewhere else. This is how civil societies die. And it’s a distraction from the story.

Peaceful demonstrations?

If they are going to dive into the world of politics, they get demonstrations. They should have stuck to law.

It’s still illegal. There is still rule of law. One terrible opinion doesn’t change that. I’m not big on behavior that puts federal judges homes at risk.

It’s literally not.

No it is. You can’t picket the home of a federal judge. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

That law also says you can't do it "in or near a building housing a court of the United States" yet people are protesting at SCOTUS every day. You seem to be missing the key element in that law: it has to be "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty." That's not what a protester is doing, so it is not illegal. But if you think so, then every protester at SCOTUS should also be charged.

Considering the opinion hasn’t been issued it’s a fine line the protesters are walking. The picketing at scotus is tolerated but not close to the doors.

There were massive demonstrations on the day of the Dobbs oral argument too. There are protests on the day of oral argument for pretty much every controversial case. No one has ever suggested this might be illegal because it very obviously does not meet the element of "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty." It's just a dumb argument that republicans have come up with to distract from the substance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what sort of surveillance and control will be implemented for this to happen

If ever there were two men who looked like they only wanted the babies to live long enough so they could eat them.

“If Roe is overturned, there’s already a criminal ban, there’s already an aiding and abetting ban, there’s already a ban on mailing medication abortion,” Sepper said. “In terms of law’s ability to change behavior, they’ve almost filled all the gaps — with the exception of criminalizing the pregnant person involved in an abortion.”

Folks, this will not get any better until the mainstream media starts asking Republicans, repeatedly, if *a woman who gets an abortion* should be charged with murder. The fact they consistently let Republicans slide on this crucial point is completely mystifying to me. When Republicans have to repeatedly go on record saying they are comfortable with the death penalty for women who get abortions—including rape victims—then and only then will things change.

I know there are journalists in the forum. Why do you continue to carry water for GOP? Do your frigging job!

Because they’re stupid, bad at their jobs and enjoy power. That’s literally the only conclusion. The “mainstream” media has gotten dumber and more right wing, like there’s some sort of brain disease spreading amongst them that makes them incredibly lazy and unwilling to crawl up a rapepublican’s butt - but more than willing to talk about absolute nonsense for weeks if it’s bad for Democrats.

This will send us back to the 1800s. I don’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed.

This. We’ve been talking about this for days and still basic errors and lack of understanding regarding the significance of the potential holding in the major papers. And they’re obsessing over the protests (which I don’t support) instead of the fear that women are feeling.

Correct for my tone here because I’m terrible at conveying messages in the right tone and I do not mean this to be hostile in the least, but look at your bolded sentence and tell me that the finger wagging patriarchy doesn’t still live a little inside your head (as it does in almost everyone’s to some degree). These “justices” - and they’re not that anymore, are they? They’re Talibangelicals on a Christianist Sharia tribunal - are literally about to make women slaves. They have affirmed the right to harass women at clinics, they have affirmed the right for forced birthers to harass clinic employees at their homes and they know full well how much violence forced birthers have commit.

The people (women) bringing the noise to these wastrels’ homes are fighting the good fight and I applaud them.

Sorry, I don’t support picketing federal judges homes. Demonstrate somewhere else. This is how civil societies die. And it’s a distraction from the story.

Peaceful demonstrations?

If they are going to dive into the world of politics, they get demonstrations. They should have stuck to law.

It’s still illegal. There is still rule of law. One terrible opinion doesn’t change that. I’m not big on behavior that puts federal judges homes at risk.

It’s literally not.

No it is. You can’t picket the home of a federal judge. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

That law also says you can't do it "in or near a building housing a court of the United States" yet people are protesting at SCOTUS every day. You seem to be missing the key element in that law: it has to be "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty." That's not what a protester is doing, so it is not illegal. But if you think so, then every protester at SCOTUS should also be charged.

Considering the opinion hasn’t been issued it’s a fine line the protesters are walking. The picketing at scotus is tolerated but not close to the doors.

There were massive demonstrations on the day of the Dobbs oral argument too. There are protests on the day of oral argument for pretty much every controversial case. No one has ever suggested this might be illegal because it very obviously does not meet the element of "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty." It's just a dumb argument that republicans have come up with to distract from the substance.

Do you not see the difference between protesting near myhe court vs. protesting at a jsutice’s home? And yes, it’s a dumb argument and a waste of time. Like I said. So don’t feed the trolls by doing it. Focus on strategies that win, not strategies that give GOP governors a platform to spin on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what sort of surveillance and control will be implemented for this to happen

If ever there were two men who looked like they only wanted the babies to live long enough so they could eat them.

“If Roe is overturned, there’s already a criminal ban, there’s already an aiding and abetting ban, there’s already a ban on mailing medication abortion,” Sepper said. “In terms of law’s ability to change behavior, they’ve almost filled all the gaps — with the exception of criminalizing the pregnant person involved in an abortion.”

Folks, this will not get any better until the mainstream media starts asking Republicans, repeatedly, if *a woman who gets an abortion* should be charged with murder. The fact they consistently let Republicans slide on this crucial point is completely mystifying to me. When Republicans have to repeatedly go on record saying they are comfortable with the death penalty for women who get abortions—including rape victims—then and only then will things change.

I know there are journalists in the forum. Why do you continue to carry water for GOP? Do your frigging job!

Because they’re stupid, bad at their jobs and enjoy power. That’s literally the only conclusion. The “mainstream” media has gotten dumber and more right wing, like there’s some sort of brain disease spreading amongst them that makes them incredibly lazy and unwilling to crawl up a rapepublican’s butt - but more than willing to talk about absolute nonsense for weeks if it’s bad for Democrats.

This will send us back to the 1800s. I don’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed.

This. We’ve been talking about this for days and still basic errors and lack of understanding regarding the significance of the potential holding in the major papers. And they’re obsessing over the protests (which I don’t support) instead of the fear that women are feeling.

QED

Four pages of back and forth about the protests. Killed all conversations about the clear and present danger this decision would create for women. Do your jobs press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a depressing thread. That a group of men (and one loony woman) have the right to take all American women's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy is horrifying. But here we are in 2022, and men are still calling the shots, controlling women.

Because women time and time again vote against their OWN interest. The interest of women.
Yeah, you have some who LOVE this ruling, but the majority don't. But I bet my bottom dollar that come november they will vote an R just like always and say it is becasue of taxes (though Rs want to raise middle class tax) or small business (yet Rs haven't done crap for small business) or education (Rs want to get rid of books that make moms have difficult convos with their kids) or some other BS story the Rs will push on them and they will vote to protect themselves from the 'big bad boogie man' that doesn't exist all the while letting the wolf into their homes and bedrooms without batting an eye.

This reminds me of a cartoon i love. It is an axe asking the forest to vote for him to be ruler because he is just like them, made of WOOD! He would never do anything to hurt them. He is just like them!!

Why should we still have to vote to fight for our human rights? The politicization of abortion is the problem. It should be standard healthcare. I’m a white woman and I have voted Democrat in every election of my life. What has it gotten me? What else can I do?

PP, I hear your frustration. I would flip your framing, you aren’t fighting for your rights, SCOTUS/GOP are TAKING AWAY our rights. Voting for Dems has stopped even more horrible bills passing. Think back on the Trump years. Do we really want to go back to that? And todays GOP are even more unhinged.

I know this is an unsatisfactory response. Believe me, I’m disappointed in Dem Congressional leadership. But then I see leaders like Malloy McMarrow and Katie Porter and I have hope.

The history of this country has been about everyone but property-owning white men needing to fight for their rights...though the rights of non-property owning white men were often granted as a way to further oppress Black men (as opposed to hard-won fights). Most of those fights have been extremely bloody. Read about the suffragettes.

Why should we have to fight for these things? Because that's how power works.

Well the whole point of the American democracy experiment is that literal fighting isn’t required.

The Civil War says hello.

Obviously. But are we saying that the experiment is over or is at another such failure point? I don’t think so.

Suffragettes experienced violence. Civil rights leaders experienced violence. Undocumented immigrants experience violence. Muslim Americans experience violence. Do you seriously htink the Civil War was the last time people had to "literally" fight to be treated as human?

Are you suggesting this needs to get violent?

I'm responding to a PP who seems to think that no one should literally have to fight for their rights in the US and that the last time anyone did was the Civil War. In reality, the history of the US since our founding has been everyone but white men fighting, often literally, for recognition of their rights by the US government.

People are surprised that they should even have to vote to protect their rights, let alone do more than just vote. It takes an incredibly selective and naive understanding of American history to think that this is surprising.

Some people are naive, yes. I’m not sure what you’re adding the conversation by crapping on them. Everyone has turning points in their lives, let this be one for those who took their rights for granted.

I think it's worthwhile to know that this is not an anomalous thing that that there are even people who've successfully fought for better protections of their rights pretty recently.

It's true that I also find it offensive that people don't recognize how much oppression there has been in this country. Also, of all the people in this thread, it's my contributions that you find least useful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what sort of surveillance and control will be implemented for this to happen

If ever there were two men who looked like they only wanted the babies to live long enough so they could eat them.

“If Roe is overturned, there’s already a criminal ban, there’s already an aiding and abetting ban, there’s already a ban on mailing medication abortion,” Sepper said. “In terms of law’s ability to change behavior, they’ve almost filled all the gaps — with the exception of criminalizing the pregnant person involved in an abortion.”

Folks, this will not get any better until the mainstream media starts asking Republicans, repeatedly, if *a woman who gets an abortion* should be charged with murder. The fact they consistently let Republicans slide on this crucial point is completely mystifying to me. When Republicans have to repeatedly go on record saying they are comfortable with the death penalty for women who get abortions—including rape victims—then and only then will things change.

I know there are journalists in the forum. Why do you continue to carry water for GOP? Do your frigging job!

Because they’re stupid, bad at their jobs and enjoy power. That’s literally the only conclusion. The “mainstream” media has gotten dumber and more right wing, like there’s some sort of brain disease spreading amongst them that makes them incredibly lazy and unwilling to crawl up a rapepublican’s butt - but more than willing to talk about absolute nonsense for weeks if it’s bad for Democrats.

This will send us back to the 1800s. I don’t understand why more people aren’t alarmed.

This. We’ve been talking about this for days and still basic errors and lack of understanding regarding the significance of the potential holding in the major papers. And they’re obsessing over the protests (which I don’t support) instead of the fear that women are feeling.

Correct for my tone here because I’m terrible at conveying messages in the right tone and I do not mean this to be hostile in the least, but look at your bolded sentence and tell me that the finger wagging patriarchy doesn’t still live a little inside your head (as it does in almost everyone’s to some degree). These “justices” - and they’re not that anymore, are they? They’re Talibangelicals on a Christianist Sharia tribunal - are literally about to make women slaves. They have affirmed the right to harass women at clinics, they have affirmed the right for forced birthers to harass clinic employees at their homes and they know full well how much violence forced birthers have commit.

The people (women) bringing the noise to these wastrels’ homes are fighting the good fight and I applaud them.

Sorry, I don’t support picketing federal judges homes. Demonstrate somewhere else. This is how civil societies die. And it’s a distraction from the story.

Peaceful demonstrations?

If they are going to dive into the world of politics, they get demonstrations. They should have stuck to law.

It’s still illegal. There is still rule of law. One terrible opinion doesn’t change that. I’m not big on behavior that puts federal judges homes at risk.

It’s literally not.

No it is. You can’t picket the home of a federal judge. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

That law also says you can't do it "in or near a building housing a court of the United States" yet people are protesting at SCOTUS every day. You seem to be missing the key element in that law: it has to be "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty." That's not what a protester is doing, so it is not illegal. But if you think so, then every protester at SCOTUS should also be charged.

Considering the opinion hasn’t been issued it’s a fine line the protesters are walking. The picketing at scotus is tolerated but not close to the doors.

There were massive demonstrations on the day of the Dobbs oral argument too. There are protests on the day of oral argument for pretty much every controversial case. No one has ever suggested this might be illegal because it very obviously does not meet the element of "with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty." It's just a dumb argument that republicans have come up with to distract from the substance.

Do you not see the difference between protesting near myhe court vs. protesting at a jsutice’s home? And yes, it’s a dumb argument and a waste of time. Like I said. So don’t feed the trolls by doing it. Focus on strategies that win, not strategies that give GOP governors a platform to spin on.

You can argue they are different, but the law people keep citing to claim the protests are illegal treat them identically.

[Anonymous]

Well for one? It’s illegal. Secondly it’s about preventing judges from being killed in their homes because they make unpopular decisions. It happens unfortunately too often. I think protesting outside of healthcare clinics is disgusting and should be illegal too… it interferes with people’s ability to get healthcare.

Please tell us what judges have been killed in their homes over unpopular decisions? Are you thinking of Colombia? Let's confine your stories to the United States.

[Anonymous]

Conservatives want to punish women. Vote against the GOP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to win the slogan war:

Women's Lives Matter
Mothers' Freedom to Live
Born an Orphan

Republicans are so much better at winning the sound-byte war and turning votes because they focus on the extreme cases that make a law while ignoring the run of the mill.

Democrats won the messaging war in Florida labeling the parental bill the "Don't Say Gay" bill. They need to focus on the visceral message to label this action. It has to have a grain of truth, it doesn't have to be completely accurate.

Flip the script - “Abortion Saves Lives”

The problem with messaging is using terms that turn people off. The word abortion is so loaded from propaganda from both sides that many people, including a large amount of people who don't pay attention to the media and news sources, immediately have ideas in their mind that may or may not be part of the discussion.

To be effective messaging, you want to use terms that will give people a visceral positive message or a message that they automatically want to support. And that means not including the politically loaded word "abortion"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well for one? It’s illegal. Secondly it’s about preventing judges from being killed in their homes because they make unpopular decisions. It happens unfortunately too often. I think protesting outside of healthcare clinics is disgusting and should be illegal too… it interferes with people’s ability to get healthcare.

Please tell us what judges have been killed in their homes over unpopular decisions? Are you thinking of Colombia? Let's confine your stories to the United States.


The point is that it doesn’t happen here very often because rule of law is a thing we take seriously. But there is a list of federal judges killed in office you can look up. Family members of judges too. I don’t agree with protesting at their homes, or at the homes of other public officials. Take it to the streets. I’ll join.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives want to punish women. Vote against the GOP!

Women are not Property

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives want to punish women. Vote against the GOP!

Women are not Property

Forced Birth Kills

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Patriots for Privacy!
Moms First!
Fight against Critical Oppression Theory (COT)!
Parental Rights! You can’t tell me how many kids to have!

Do not kill mothers!
Support our moms!
Let the family decide!
Stop government outreach in my healthcare!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to win the slogan war:

Women's Lives Matter
Mothers' Freedom to Live
Born an Orphan

Republicans are so much better at winning the sound-byte war and turning votes because they focus on the extreme cases that make a law while ignoring the run of the mill.

Democrats won the messaging war in Florida labeling the parental bill the "Don't Say Gay" bill. They need to focus on the visceral message to label this action. It has to have a grain of truth, it doesn't have to be completely accurate.

Flip the script - “Abortion Saves Lives”

I like Abortion Bans Kill better.

This one bans "Safe Abortion" - it does not ban abortion...