chasfh

That sounds good to me, as long as they can get around voter-suppression strategies such as accepting gun permits as valid Voter IDs while rejecting student IDs for same.

Does it matter? Americans oppose overturning Roe by 2-to-1 and that's not going to stop the Court. And leafing from there, logically speaking, the Court can't not overturn Obergefell, or all of the rest of them, because they all rely on the same 14th Amendment due process right-to-privacy argument Roe does. I don't see how that 14th Amendment can apply to some of them but not to some of the others. And good luck getting a permanent national right-to-abortion, right-to-marry-who-you-want, or any other similar-type law through Congress, since even if they could get enough legislators on board to pass it, it would surely be struck down by this or a similar court on 10th Amendment grounds.

OK, Just asking because you said that a game in which the Tigers are beating the Pirates 3-2 is "such a pathetic baseball exhibition." 😉

But it's against Jesus or something, so that's enough.

Pirates fan?

Ke'Bryan Hayes was rewarded for his misplay at third by moving up the spectrum to short. 👍🏼

I see TORK! has been learning to catch those foul popups back of first base.

Don't be surprised if deep red states outlaw same sex partner benefits at the same time they outlaw same sex marriage, because religious liberty.

Well, that was fun while it lasted …

It does seem that once Roe is overturned, there really is nothing to keep them from overturning Casey, Obergefell, Loving, Lawrence, Griswold, or any of the rest of them. None of these will be considered settled law anymore. I personally hope that once Loving is overturned and the Thomases travel to a state where interracial marriage is newly outlawed, they get arrested and imprisoned for being married. I would also accept his getting arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a white female. 😉

Between this and the earlier revelation of Chad Wolf blocking the Russian Trump DHS report, the lesson I’m taking away from this is that the veneer of civilized behavior really is very thin as long as there is no universally agreed-upon enforcement mechanism in place to discourage and punish malfeasance.

Banning the shift would not have gotten TORK! a base hit there.

And yet AGAIN! Robbed a base hit from center field!

That’s OK, I’ve seen that before here. I remember in 2016 when my various hypotheses that certain elements of a Trump presidency might lead to fascist autocracy would be dismissed in a single sentence as “Alarmist Non-sense”. But hey, denialism is easy, cheap, and, I guess, fun. Which is fine for a free mostly anonymous online forum since there are no stakes here but reputation. After all, whenever any of the Alarmist Non-sense does come to pass, they can just shrug their shoulders and be like, “oops, guess I was wrong, oh well.” Or perhaps simply forget or deny they dismissed it in the first place. Also, not for nothing, only one person here brought up the idea that killing minority children would be doing them a favor, but I don’t see anybody here advocating anything even close to that idea. Don’t hold your breath waiting for evidence of it.

Tried a different starting word today. Wordle 319 2/6 ⬜🟨🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Honestly, as an idea, "let Planned Parenthood sort it out" sounds completely unbaked. It's going to take a lot a lot more than seminars and bootstraps to help women and girls who are completely ignorant and unmotivated about parenting to raise an actual live child with any level of success. And adoption is not an option for a lot of women or girls, because for a lot of them, carrying a baby completely to term and then immediately giving it up for adoption is far more traumatizing than having an abortion would have been. I understand that namby-pamby concepts like traumatization don't penetrate the hearts of the hardest anti-abortion people, but healthcare professionals, social care professionals, and most of the rest of us recognize that as real barrier to the freewheeling have-the-baby-and-put-it-up-for-adoption solution that sounds oh so easy. I get that for the hardcore people it's supposed to be all about punishing the girls for the temerity of having sex in the first place, but that doesn't mean it's right.

I was asking a serious question, twice, about what we should do with the 750,000 or so more additional babies that presumably would be born once abortion is outlawed throughout America. In a abortion-is-outlawed world, through the years, millions of girls and women, many of whom are young teen and preteen girls coerced into having sex in the first place by adult men, would be compelled to carry the child to term and raise it themselves, as the father takes himself out of the picture, the girl gives up schooling that might better her life to take whatever low paying no-health-care-giving job she can get, trying to raise the child in impoverished circumstances, all while being criticized for even being a single mother, and ultimately resenting her child and the damage that having it did to her life while taking out her frustrations on that kid throughout his childhood as he ends up drifting who knows where, all while putting billions of dollars in additional strain on the public assistance system. Add on top of that the hundreds of thousands of girls and women who would keep taking their chances on illegal abortions, frequently unsafe, and this would result in many multiples more deaths on abortion tables than the single digit number per year that occurs today. I know the hardcore anti-abortion people give less than a shit about the mothers, since they tend to dismiss such women and girls as sluts out slutting around, so hell yes they should get the punishment they deserve by being forced to raise a baby. But it's worth remembering that the women and girls are not the only ones who would suffer here. The baby—the part of this equation these anti-choicers purport to be all so, so concerned about—is also in a very bad spot as well. If this entire debate is all about the baby and not really about the mother—is that the case for anyone here?—then sure, that would make some case that abortion should always be illegal in all circumstances. And it looks like that sooner than later, they're gonna get their wish. But remember: in a handmaid's world, once the baby is born, it's not as simple as life wins and the job is complete. God help that baby afterwards, because in most cases, it is going to be a very bad ride for that kid.

Can you elaborate on this? What's your idea here?

The only ramification they care about is that Jesus will send them to Hell if they think even for a fleeting second that abortion is not the worst sin that can be committed this side of running pizza parlors in D.C.

Coming to a newsstand near you ...

The point you appeared to be making was that you want us to stop talking about the Republicans' off-the-deep-end abortion policy, which is a major issue for millions of people, and get us talking about some manufactured outrage that has happened maybe six times, tops. The abortion issue is the only issue at issue at the moment. Attempting to whatabout a completely unrelated topic into the mix is, as the kids of 2007 say, weak sauce.

Not as extreme as Missouri checking off all known out-of-state visitors against a nationwide abortion database and arresting and imprisoning those tourists that appear on that list, for breaking Missouri law while in another state. If they can do it to their own citizens, they can do it to tourists stepping into Missouri for the first time. Once they pass that law, the IUD thing will look downright reasonable. 😉

So, a woman or a girl who might have had an abortion had it been available to them, but was forced to have the baby instead—and it's not as though we'd know one way or the other, since abortion would be illegal and thus outside the bounds of consideration—when these women or girls do have their baby, your approach would be to imprison them? I don't know ... that doesn't sound like a serious solution to me, but I did say this was a serious question, so that means this is your serious answer. My serious reply is, I sure wouldn't do that, and I'm not sure even Republicans would do that. But who knows, maybe you're on to something.

This is a serious question. What do we do with all the additional babies and their mothers, especially the underage girls?