GOP Senate Candidate: No Abortion in Cases of Rape or Incest

Wingnuts • Views: 3,664

Colorado Tea Party Senate candidate Ken Buck joins the completely insane and heartless anti-choice crowd, and says women who are raped or who are victims of incest should be forced to have the rapist’s child.

QUESTION: How do you feel about abortion? Are you for abortion, against abortion, are you for it? In what instances would you allow for abortion?

BUCK: I am pro-life, and I’ll answer the next question. I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. I believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it’s truly life of the mother.

To me, you can’t say you’re pro-life and say — if there is, and it’s a very rare situation where one life would have to cease for the other life to exist. But in that very rare situation, we may have to take the life of the child to save the life of the mother.

In that rare situation, I am in favor of that exception. But other than that I have no exceptions in my position.

Jump to bottom

63 comments
1 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:04:40am

Fuck this guy. I have lost tolerance.

2 tradewind  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:06:27am

Wow…. Haslam has an ad on LGF.
Going to be the next governor, for sure.

3 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:06:42am

BBIAB.

4 Max  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:06:50am

This isn’t “far right” anymore. It’s mainstream GOP policy, supported by Palin, Huckabee, Jindal, Paul, etc.

5 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:07:50am

re: #4 Max D. Reinhardt

This isn’t “far right” anymore. It’s mainstream GOP policy, supported by Palin, Huckabee, Jindal, Paul, etc.

I am a GOR’er. This isn’t my party.

6 b_sharp  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:07:53am

For abortion? Who the fuck is for abortion? What a stupidly worded question.

Sometimes it’s necessary, sometimes it is a question of rights, but I doubt there are many that think it’s anything but a emotionally painful and difficult choice.

7 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:08:18am

re: #5 Cannadian Club Akbar

GOP’er. PIMF

8 wrenchwench  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:08:25am

Sounds like the health of the mother isn’t really a consideration either, unless she would die for sure without an abortion:

BUCK: I am pro-life, and I’ll answer the next question. I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. I believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it’s truly life of the mother.

To me, you can’t say you’re pro-life and say — if there is, and it’s a very rare situation where one life would have to cease for the other life to exist. But in that very rare situation, we may have to take the life of the child to save the life of the mother.

In that rare situation, I am in favor of that exception. But other than that I have no exceptions in my position.

9 aurelius  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:08:29am

great… let’s promote rapist procreation…

asshole.

You would think a wingnut at least would have a touch of eugenics enough to want to weed out the rapist genes.

guess the sheer asshole factor is dominant.

10 Four More Tears  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:09:14am

re: #7 Cannadian Club Akbar

GOP’er. PIMF

Heh. I thought you were coming up with something new.

11 aurelius  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:10:12am

re: #10 JasonA

Heh. I thought you were coming up with something new.

GOR person= grand old reasonable person

12 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:10:21am

good thing Buck will never have to make that choice or be a victim of rape or incest that results in pregnancy.

I love the Pro-life/GOP argument, you get pregnant then you should have the baby, if you need help with the baby “Fuck you, you’re on your own” because if they had their way there’d be no S-CHIP, no welfare assistance, no WIC, no nothing.

13 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:12:23am

I am officially a moderate.

14 mikefromArlington  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:13:00am

What a sweet heart.

15 e5india  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:13:13am

I’m pro-choice but to me this is the anti position that makes the most logical sense. If you’re against abortion because a fetus is a human being, then why would rape or incest matter? I think once you start making exceptions than the whole fetus-is-a-human being line of reasoning is compromised.

16 b_sharp  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:15:12am

re: #11 aurelius

GOR person= grand old reasonable person

I was afraid it meant - ‘Grand Olde Rationalist’.

I was about to get all Empiricist and Hume’r him.

17 Lidane  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:15:15am

Ugh. I could say so much about this, but I won’t waste the energy on Ken Buck.

Fuck him sideways with a 2x4, no lube, and no kiss after it’s done. He’s beneath contempt.

18 theheat  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:16:37am

Forever the protectors of zygotes and the self-righteous subjugators of women. Fuck free choice, fuck minding their own business. Heck yeah, it’s one size fits all justice meted out by The Deciders and Real Americans™.

19 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:19:04am

re: #15 e5india

I’m pro-choice but to me this is the anti position that makes the most logical sense. If you’re against abortion because a fetus is a human being, then why would rape or incest matter? I think once you start making exceptions than the whole fetus-is-a-human being line of reasoning is compromised.

I personally would encourage adoption unless the case involved imminent risk to the mother’s life. In either case a heartwrenching decision.

However, I am loathe to legislate that decision for another and deny them the right to make that choice themselves.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have,” -Gerald Ford in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974

Having said that the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience sake. It is a plague on our society and one of epic proportions in the Black community.

But to use the power of government to force the decision on a victim of rape or incest… that is downright evil.

20 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:23:32am

re: #15 e5india

I’m pro-choice but to me this is the anti position that makes the most logical sense. If you’re against abortion because a fetus is a human being, then why would rape or incest matter? I think once you start making exceptions than the whole fetus-is-a-human being line of reasoning is compromised.

The only way this “makes sense” is if you completely ignore the horrendous pain this would cause the woman who was forced to give birth to a rapist’s baby.

There’s nothing logical about this. It’s sick.

21 MandyManners  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:29:38am

Can you imagine sharing custody with a man who raped you?

22 theheat  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:31:03am

re: #21 MandyManners

Bingo.

23 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:34:09am

Anyone read zombie’s diatribe on his blog, lauding Sharron Angle for pretty much the same stance, not because zombie would agree with her stance but because of its extremist fundamentalism which somehow is a sign of moral superiority?

24 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:34:21am

Heh. I got stealth downdinged by Charles.

Let me be perfectly clear- no woman should ever be forced to carry a child due to incest or rape. Adoption would be an option for someone who personally believed that terminating a pregnancy is murder.

The psychological pain of carrying or terminating would be horrendous in either case, but it is ultimately the womans decision- not the decision of the state, the church or anyone else.

Rapists and incestuous predators on the other hand deserve to have their ability to be predators forcibly removed, even by execution if that is the only way.

25 thebs  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:35:40am

Angle holds the same view; even so crass as to tell pregnant rape/incest victims they need to make “lemonade from lemons.” That sentiment is universally putrid and vile.

26 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:36:35am

re: #23 000G

Anyone read zombie’s diatribe on his blog, lauding Sharron Angle for pretty much the same stance, not because zombie would agree with her stance but because of its extremist fundamentalism which somehow is a sign of moral superiority?


Yes. and his argument was not moral superiority but consistency. That did not mean he agrees with her stand just that it was more consistent than someone who claims to value life but would terminate a pregnancy even under the most dire circumstances.

Guess what- I disagree with him. Life, even when you value it as sacred, is not so cut and dry. But please don’t misrepresent what Zombie said to make him sound like he things forcing a woman to carry the child of a rapist is morally superior.

27 e5india  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:36:42am

Charles I agree with you, I’m 100% pro-choice. But if you are against abortion on the basis that a fetus is a human life and that abortion is murder then how do you go and make an exception for rape and incest? I’m not talking about the immorality of forcing a woman to have a rapist’s child. I clearly understand *why* you would make the exception, but how do people make this exception? Did the fetus stop being a human life in this exception or does it just become a justifiable homicide?

28 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:37:02am

re: #8 wrenchwench

Sounds like the health of the mother isn’t really a consideration either, unless she would die for sure without an abortion:

Just, you know, losing kidney function, or having her health badly enough compromised that she would not be able to take care of her children, or work…hell no.

29 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:37:45am

re: #13 DaddyG

I am officially a moderate.

You go, guy.

30 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:38:32am

re: #15 e5india

I’m pro-choice but to me this is the anti position that makes the most logical sense. If you’re against abortion because a fetus is a human being, then why would rape or incest matter? I think once you start making exceptions than the whole fetus-is-a-human being line of reasoning is compromised.

I have to say, I also have a distaste for the ‘except in rape or incest’ clause. Never had it explained to my satisfaction.

31 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:38:38am

re: #27 e5india

Charles I agree with you, I’m 100% pro-choice. But if you are against abortion on the basis that a fetus is a human life and that abortion is murder then how do you go and make an exception for rape and incest? I’m not talking about the immorality of forcing a woman to have a rapist’s child. I clearly understand *why* you would make the exception, but how do people make this exception? Did the fetus stop being a human life in this exception or does it just become a justifiable homicide?

You can’t take a heartless, illogical, and frankly crazy position and use that as an argument. I don’t grant any legitimacy to the anti-choice position in the first place, so I object to calling anything about it “logical.”

32 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:39:35am

re: #23 000G

Anyone read zombie’s diatribe on his blog, lauding Sharron Angle for pretty much the same stance, not because zombie would agree with her stance but because of its extremist fundamentalism which somehow is a sign of moral superiority?

I don’t read that back-stabbing creep’s blog.

33 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:39:51am

re: #26 DaddyG

Yes. and his argument was not moral superiority but consistency. […] But please don’t misrepresent what Zombie said to make him sound like he things forcing a woman to carry the child of a rapist is morally superior.

My point was that he took consistency to be a moral quality. Reread his article.

34 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:40:28am

re: #23 000G

Anyone read zombie’s diatribe on his blog, lauding Sharron Angle for pretty much the same stance, not because zombie would agree with her stance but because of its extremist Christian fundamentalism which somehow is a sign of moral superiority?

FIFY. Muslim fundamentalism is BAAAAD.

/

35 aurelius  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:40:47am

whoa, shit just got real. ;)

36 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:41:06am

re: #25 thebs

Angle holds the same view; even so crass as to tell pregnant rape/incest victims they need to make “lemonade from lemons.” That sentiment is universally putrid and vile.

Now, that’s taking callous to a whole new level.

37 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:41:28am

re: #33 000G

My point was that he took consistency to be a moral quality. Reread his article.


We agree more than we disagree. Consistency is a moral principle but not nearly on par with mercy, judgement and the wisdom to apply them.

38 wrenchwench  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:42:23am

re: #31 Charles

You can’t take a heartless, illogical, and frankly crazy position and use that as an argument. I don’t grant any legitimacy to the anti-choice position in the first place, so I object to calling anything about it “logical.”

You save me a lot of flailing at the keyboard sometimes….

39 wrenchwench  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:44:28am

re: #25 thebs

Welcome, hatchling.

40 aurelius  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:46:57am

reductio ad absurdum

[Link: mathworld.wolfram.com…]


often useful in pointing out stupidity of wingnut positions.

41 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:49:15am

re: #31 Charles

You can’t take a heartless, illogical, and frankly crazy position and use that as an argument. I don’t grant any legitimacy to the anti-choice position in the first place, so I object to calling anything about it “logical.”

For me it’s more a matter of real contempt for people who will say a fetus is a human life, and to take that life is tantamount to murder, but they’ll back off on rape or incest because:

a. if they don’t, people see what nuts they are and are repulsed and

b. it’s not really the mother’s FAULT then.

Saying OK (legally) only to rape and incest clauses seems to me to be a way of sugar-coating your basic agenda, which is taking choice from women. I don’t have any respect for it, and accordingly, not much more disrespect for the nuts who are nutty enough to go whole hog, and I do mean hog.

42 Lidane  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:50:46am

re: #38 wrenchwench

You save me a lot of flailing at the keyboard sometimes…

Same here.

43 theheat  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 11:55:37am

re: #37 DaddyG

Ken Buck offers unwavering adherence to illogical, cruel, and sanctimonious principles. Yes, in that respect, the hardcore anti-abortion crowd is consistent. All zygotes are all people, all of the time. (The zygote incubators, not so much.)

44 e5india  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 12:06:56pm

re: #31 Charles

SanFranciscoZionist does a better job of getting to the point I was poorly making, that when the anti-abortion side makes exceptions for rape and incest it exposes that their true motivation has more to do with conservative attitudes toward sexuality and less with protecting ‘innocent lives.’ If their true motivation in opposing abortion was protecting the unborn then you wouldn’t make exceptions for rape and incest because they aren’t at fault.

45 teleskiguy  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 12:10:22pm

Ken Buck is a fucking shithead. There, I said it.

Along with other of my wonderful Colorado GOP’ers. Ken Buck, Tom Tancredo, Mike Rosen, Mike Brown, Scott McGinnis, all of the Grand Junction GOP leadership, Mark Hillman, those fuckers at the Independence Institute, aw shit. Conservatism sucks in Colorado. Where are the sane conservatives?

46 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 12:14:39pm

re: #43 theheat

Ken Buck offers unwavering adherence to illogical, cruel, and sanctimonious principles. Yes, in that respect, the hardcore anti-abortion crowd is consistent. All zygotes are all people, all of the time. (The zygote incubators, not so much.)

Yes indeed. The logic that says those who are with us now are less important than those who could be with us some day is seriously flawed.

The only perfect solution to this is to eliminate rape and incest. That is probably not possible but we could make some real inroads towards permenantly eliminating repeat offenders.

47 DaddyG  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 12:15:28pm

re: #45 teleskiguy

Where are the sane conservatives?

They are now moderates.

48 alexknyc  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 12:18:19pm

re: #12 Dreggas

good thing Buck will never have to make that choice or be a victim of rape or incest that results in pregnancy.

I love the Pro-life/GOP argument, you get pregnant then you should have the baby, if you need help with the baby “Fuck you, you’re on your own” because if they had their way there’d be no S-CHIP, no welfare assistance, no WIC, no nothing.

Barney Frank has been quoted as saying for pro-life Republicans, “life begins at conception and ends at birth.”

49 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 12:19:27pm

re: #45 teleskiguy

Ken Buck is a fucking shithead. There, I said it.

Along with other of my wonderful Colorado GOP’ers. Ken Buck, Tom Tancredo, Mike Rosen, Mike Brown, Scott McGinnis, all of the Grand Junction GOP leadership, Mark Hillman, those fuckers at the Independence Institute, aw shit. Conservatism sucks in Colorado. Where are the sane conservatives?

Ever thought of running?

50 Coracle  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 12:24:11pm

re: #31 Charles

You can’t take a heartless, illogical, and frankly crazy position and use that as an argument. I don’t grant any legitimacy to the anti-choice position in the first place, so I object to calling anything about it “logical.”

I’m gonna quibble with you, Charles. The anti-choicers who will make no exception in cases of rape or incest _do_ have an internally consistent logic of their own. They put the life of the fetus over _everything_ except possibly the _life_ of the mother. Pain and suffering, psychological and possibly physical damage to the mother, in this calculus, do not weigh as much as a fetus’ life. It’s a twisted and barbaric logic, but it is a consistent logic for an extreme anti-choice pro-life-at-any-cost position.

Personally, I think such a stance is bankrupt of sense and compassion. A woman’s body is her sovereign territory, and she has the first and final say as to what happens with and in it, and I find anti-choice stances invasive and reprehensible. But e5india’s point (at least the one I’m addressing) isn’t about whether the reprehensibility of the position, but its internal logic.

51 Yashmak  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 12:27:31pm

re: #50 Coracle

Personally, I think such a stance is bankrupt of sense and compassion.

Agreed, and I sincerely believe that most folks holding the view that there should be no exception for rape/incest would do a quick 180 were they ever to find themselves in those circumstances.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find there’s already statistical data showing that to be true.

52 aurelius  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 12:43:50pm

Just include a link to the definition of reductio ad absurdum next time. ;)

re: #44 e5india

SanFranciscoZionist does a better job of getting to the point I was poorly making, that when the anti-abortion side makes exceptions for rape and incest it exposes that their true motivation has more to do with conservative attitudes toward sexuality and less with protecting ‘innocent lives.’ If their true motivation in opposing abortion was protecting the unborn then you wouldn’t make exceptions for rape and incest because they aren’t at fault.

53 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 12:52:48pm

re: #15 e5india

I’m pro-choice but to me this is the anti position that makes the most logical sense. If you’re against abortion because a fetus is a human being, then why would rape or incest matter? I think once you start making exceptions than the whole fetus-is-a-human being line of reasoning is compromised.

Have you ever heard the expression “the exception proves the rule”?
There is nothing logical about Buck’s position.

54 Eclectic Infidel  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 1:49:04pm

Does this guy have a wife? A daughter or two? If so, I wonder what they would have to say about this.

55 aurelius  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 1:55:04pm

unclear… loads of women feel the same way.

cf Palin, Bachmann, etc etc.

re: #54 eclectic infidel

Does this guy have a wife? A daughter or two? If so, I wonder what they would have to say about this.

56 Romantic Heretic  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 2:07:14pm

re: #47 DaddyG

They are now moderates.

They always were. It’s just that thanks to modern information technology and the profit motive we hear a lot more from the wingnuts.

Twenty years ago, even ten, the chances of us hearing about people like this would be practically nil. The internet wasn’t the ubiquitous thing it is now. Newspapers, radio and TV wouldn’t have given him a national platform. Now a butterfly farts in Beijing and we hear about it.

It’s kind of skewed our perspective.

57 TimPowers  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 2:10:52pm

Ken Buck’s position is logical, if you grant the initial premise, i.e. that a fetus is a distinct human being. And while that premise may arguably be wrong, it’s not insane. And by that logic, any time you abort a fetus, even if it’s a result of rape or incest, you are killing a child. Maybe it’s permissible to kill a child rather than go through an involuntary, devastatingly traumatic pregnancy.

But even without Buck’s assumption, I think everybody agrees that at some point, between conception and birth, a third person enters the picture in addition to the mother and father. An abortion before that point is just surgery, but after that point it’s homicide. Possibly justifiable in some cases.

58 Charles Johnson  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 2:33:40pm

re: #57 TimPowers

Ken Buck’s position is logical, if you grant the initial premise, i.e. that a fetus is a distinct human being. And while that premise may arguably be wrong, it’s not insane. And by that logic, any time you abort a fetus, even if it’s a result of rape or incest, you are killing a child. Maybe it’s permissible to kill a child rather than go through an involuntary, devastatingly traumatic pregnancy.

But even without Buck’s assumption, I think everybody agrees that at some point, between conception and birth, a third person enters the picture in addition to the mother and father. An abortion before that point is just surgery, but after that point it’s homicide. Possibly justifiable in some cases.

Hi Tim, nice to see you here!

The real point, I think, is that any victim of rape or incest is certainly not going to wait until there’s a fetus; an abortion in those cases is almost always performed long before there’s anything recognizable as a fetus, much less a human being.

Denying a rape victim the option to abort the rapist’s baby strikes me as the most heartless kind of controlling behavior I can imagine. It’s possible to be opposed to abortion, without taking it to this kind of extreme.

59 jamesfirecat  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 7:59:49pm

re: #57 TimPowers

Ken Buck’s position is logical, if you grant the initial premise, i.e. that a fetus is a distinct human being. And while that premise may arguably be wrong, it’s not insane. And by that logic, any time you abort a fetus, even if it’s a result of rape or incest, you are killing a child. Maybe it’s permissible to kill a child rather than go through an involuntary, devastatingly traumatic pregnancy.

But even without Buck’s assumption, I think everybody agrees that at some point, between conception and birth, a third person enters the picture in addition to the mother and father. An abortion before that point is just surgery, but after that point it’s homicide. Possibly justifiable in some cases.

Your wrong.

Read the Violinist Argument.

A case may be made that a human beings organs are so sacrosanct that you are allowed to kill someone by denying them access to them.

To argue that others have a right to make use of our organs without our express consent….

Think about what would that would mean…..

60 TimPowers  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 8:28:48pm

Hi, Charles!

Jamesfirecat, the Violinist Argument is a nice point.

The organ business sounds like a Larry Niven story.

61 boxhead  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 8:30:27pm

re: #60 TimPowers

Hi, Charles!

Jamesfirecat, the Violinist Argument is a nice point.

The organ business sounds like a Larry Niven story.

Powers? Blaylock here….
//

62 jamesfirecat  Thu, Aug 5, 2010 9:08:48pm

re: #60 TimPowers

Hi, Charles!

Jamesfirecat, the Violinist Argument is a nice point.

The organ business sounds like a Larry Niven story.

Thank you for reading up on it, the Violinist argument is an important one to bear in mind, because its a bit of political judo in that we take the opponent’s strongest point and turn it against them, by saying that if fetuses should have all the same rights as people, then people should have all the same rights as fetuses….

63 ClaudeMonet  Fri, Aug 6, 2010 12:27:27am

re: #19 DaddyG

I personally would encourage adoption unless the case involved imminent risk to the mother’s life. In either case a heartwrenching decision.

However, I am loathe to legislate that decision for another and deny them the right to make that choice themselves.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have,” -Gerald Ford in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974

Having said that the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience sake. It is a plague on our society and one of epic proportions in the Black community.

But to use the power of government to force the decision on a victim of rape or incest… that is downright evil.

While President Ford used the quote, I believe it’s originally from Barry Goldwater.

Getting back to the subject—I’m bothered by “except in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother.” I can see a real can of worms when it comes to who makes the decision. Put local law enforcement and/or hospital administration in the hands of wingnuts, and they’ll find a reason to deny even that, every time, until it’s too late. “You haven’t proven you were raped”, “Sure, it was your first cousin, uh huh”, and “You’re faking it, you’re not really in danger”, not to mention the ever-popular, “We’re not stalling, we just want to make sure you’re doing the right thing”.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
11 minutes ago
Views: 28 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0