Texas is at it again

I have some more questions for @WhoAreYou too .
Do you believe in the death penalty? I see you stress “innocent life”.
Are you male? If female the “if you don’t believe in abortion don’t have one” applies, if male that goes double.


Oh, it’s this right wing bullshit again.

Is saving a woman’s life by ending an ectopic pregnancy that will kill her, “selfishness and hedonism”? No. Drop this rancid shit.

This right wing bullshit about women carelessly aborting babies for selfish reasons is precisely that - right wing bullshit erected for the purpose of trying to make The Handmaid’s Tale a nightmare reality by creepy Christian Nationalists.

Seeing a creationist talk about “true understanding of biology” just blew up every irony meter on the planet.

Except that often, that “potential” doesn’t happen. Oh wait, why do some couples have to resort to fertility treatments in order to conceive?

Heard of contraception have you? Oh wait, that’s something else that creepy Christian Nationalists want to abolish.

Here we go again with the “punish the sluts” right wing bullshit and lies.

What about the “lack of sexual control” endemic to rape? Should a woman be forced to carry a rapist’s child against her will?

Ahem, what about miscarriage?

Oh wait, fully one third of all human conceptions, according to the medical literature, end in this manner.

Which, if your Bronze Age mythology is something other than fiction, makes your cartoon magic man the biggest abortionist of the lot.

You mean the way that creationists don’t?

Ectopic pregnancy? Miscarriage? Rape? None of these are “choices”, no matter how much bullshit right wing Christian Nationalist spin you try to put on this.

BOOM goes yet another collection of irony meters …

Fatuous analogy.

Except that you won’t get burnt if you’re wearing an asbestos hazmat suit.

Do you ever bother engaging any neurons before posting?


Oh oh oh, me me me!!!

Sorry, I knew the answer and it went right to my head.

1 Like


No one has the right to use your body to sustain their life WITHOUT your consent.


I think the next time anyone who doesn’t think women should have the ability to make decisions about their own bodies has a decision to make about their own well being they need to call up a random stranger and let them tell them what to do. If it comes down to a decision where they think their life and health is in danger they need to wait for a panel of people, with no expertise, to decide if they think they are close enough to death to warrant treatment.


Kinda like the countless garbage barges removing east coast garbage into the Atlantic. We could always sell Texas to a drug cartel.

The North would have to build a wall to keep them out.

1 Like

Looks like Arizona is up to their share of bs as well…


Arizona might want to read the first amendment, like Texas really. Loading the Supreme Court with right wing Republicans, does not necessarily mean they will simply wave in state laws that violate the constitution, surely? Then again I’d never have believed (before it happened) that a sitting President would encourage insurrection against the peaceful transfer of power in a legal election, even the Donald.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,”

1 Like

There are laws all over the U.S. that indicate this is being completely ignored….unless it has to do with a religion other than xtianity.

1 Like

Now Iowa is at it…

I wonder how many other religions can clue into the fact that they could be next.

I think whenever decisions like these are made that every politician and legislature should take a fair look at the Constitution and reaffirm the rights of people living in a supposedly free country and reassess how those decisions affect people’s liberty and freedom.

That’s why I feel the importance of having smart intelligent leaders with the proper foresight and jurisprudence is paramount in maintaining the principles of freedom and liberty outlined by the founding fathers of this country.

It is my sincerest hope that these injustices will be corrected in an equitable and fair way for everyone.

1 Like

I remember as a student in school being tested for comprehension. We would read a short passage and then answer questions. By grade six we were doing book reports. Maybe before signing up to run for office politicians should be required to read the constitution or the bill of rights and in Canada the charter of rights and freedoms. Passing a test on these docs would be a necessary qualification to run for office. If they fail the test they can go back to selling used cars or lawyering. Finally if at anytime during their term in office they propose a bill that might run a foul of the constitution it would be tested in court. If it fails to pass mustard the person or party that proposed the bill would be assessed court costs. :grin:

I think it would be an excellent requirement that all politicians have a reasonable familiarity with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because that’s what they are representing and had taken as an oath of office before commencing their duties.

I don’t think you have to be one of those constitutional experts to understand the basic message of freedom and liberty the founding fathers were trying to relay when this country was established either.

It’s heartbreaking to see that many of our Representatives do not have that familiarity or seem to be willing to forgo constitutional principles in placing personal political ambitions above their own office , which is why I think these things are happening today that causes people to wonder what’s going on with our country.

1 Like

Professional lawyers and judges regularly try to interpret constitutions all over the world, and their comprehension and understanding vary, so what would you consider an appropriate level of comprehension required to be? Who should decide? Who should judge whether the comprehension is there or not? And who should decide on the comprehension level of the ones judging the levels of comprehension?


Good questions: My first attempt to develop a cogent plan resulted in me slipping on the ice and falling down a rabbit hole from which I barely escaped with my life. Your questions forced me to see the complexity of the problem. In Canada we have provinces and a federal government. Our legislatures are parliamentary democracies. Almost every new issue that comes up results in a bruhaha between the provinces sometimes united and sometimes not and the federal government. We have found a balance (sorta) between collective and individual rights. So it seems to me that question should be answered and agreed upon first. That will provide some guideposts around the problem of interpretation. I would hope that the people developing the questions will be smart enough to see the importance of consensus and compromise. If they are unable to agree on the answers then we’re doomed to wander in the swamp of alternate facts, where we will likely run in to the orangeman and that conwaywoman. My final recommendation would be to keep it simple. Oh and just for fun let the judges be a blend between black gospel singers and white soccer moms with a scattering of illegal immigrants from central and south america.