Pages

 

Recent Pages by Kragar (Proud to be Kafir) (Kragar):
happy turkey day! 1947 Anti-Fascism Video: "Don't Be a Sucker" What if Donald Trump Is Just an Elaborate Prank? The Stunning Hypocrisy of Senator Thune Who Won Science Fiction's Hugo Awards, and Why It Matters

Jump to bottom

33 comments

1 HappyWarrior  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 10:43:54am

Yeah Jim you really care so much about small government. What's next Jim, banning thinking about abortion? What a creep this guy is.

2 Simply Sarah  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 10:47:01am

Is there a link to the text of the proposed amendment anywhere? I'm trying to figure out exactly what it would claim to do and how it would find a way to pretend it wasn't comically in violation of the First Amendment, never mind being ridiculous and disgusting in general.

3 windsagio  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 10:57:10am

re: #2 Simply Sarah

It's really hard to accept that one as real, yeah.

4 dragonfire1981  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 11:00:33am

And if a Democrat tried to sneak shit into a bill like this the right would want them lynched.

5 iceweasel  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 11:05:37am

re: #2 Simply Sarah

Is there a link to the text of the proposed amendment anywhere? I'm trying to figure out exactly what it would claim to do and how it would find a way to pretend it wasn't comically in violation of the First Amendment, never mind being ridiculous and disgusting in general.

There's a couple of states where women can use the internet at a clinic to talk to an out of state doctor (or just one hours away) who can prescribe the equivalent of RU-486-- non surgical abortion methods. The proposed bill would be a way of stopping that.

6 Simply Sarah  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 11:13:27am

re: #5 iceweasel

There's a couple of states where women can use the internet at a clinic to talk to an out of state doctor (or just one hours away) who can prescribe the equivalent of RU-486-- non surgical abortion methods. The proposed bill would be a way of stopping that.

Ah ha. Even worse than it sounded originally.

7 iceweasel  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 11:16:05am

re: #6 Simply Sarah

Ah ha. Even worse than it sounded originally.

There are already a couple of states, I can't recall which, where this videoconferencing is the only way for many woman to get an abortion in the first trimester. As with all attacks on Roe, the intent is to keep pushing back until no woman can get an abortion. of course, these people aren't happy with nonsurgical abortion in the first place-- they'd rather the bitches suffer through surgical abortions.

8 Sionainn  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 11:16:33am

The text for the amendment isn't available yet. Here's a link to the bill and amendments. It looks like his is #147. It says this:

Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.

9 Kruk  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 11:16:47am

If you claim to love the Constitution, you could at least read the blessed thing:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You hear that, Congress? They're talking about you. Specifically.

10 Sionainn  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 11:17:22am

It also looks like King has proposed an amendment prohibiting paying for RU-486 (?).

11 Simply Sarah  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 11:21:10am

re: #10 Sionainn

It also looks like King has proposed an amendment prohibiting paying for RU-486 (?).

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Par for the course, sadly.

12 Sionainn  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 11:21:42am

Bunch of dickwads.

13 Simply Sarah  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 11:23:40am

re: #7 iceweasel

There are already a couple of states, I can't recall which, where this videoconferencing is the only way for many woman to get an abortion in the first trimester. As with all attacks on Roe, the intent is to keep pushing back until no woman can get an abortion. of course, these people aren't happy with nonsurgical abortion in the first place-- they'd rather the bitches suffer through surgical abortions.

Yeah, I'm aware of that there are several states where access to an actual abortion provider in person is impossible (Or next to it). This whole thing makes a lot more sense when understood specifically as yet another way of going after one of the few remaining options for pregnant people in those places.

14 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 12:20:50pm

These people really have trouble with the concept of freedom of speech, don't they?

15 Amory Blaine  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 12:51:18pm

Lazer. Jobs.

16 Henchman 25  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 2:21:05pm

THIS IS CREATING SO MANY JOBS, RIGHT?

17 Jack Burton  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 2:45:36pm

Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.

18 researchok  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 2:54:08pm
Whats next?

Therein lies the whole problem.

19 Lidane  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 3:20:18pm

re: #14 Romantic Heretic

These people really have trouble with the concept of freedom of speech, don't they?

FTFY

20 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 5:23:47pm

re: #5 iceweasel

There's a couple of states where women can use the internet at a clinic to talk to an out of state doctor (or just one hours away) who can prescribe the equivalent of RU-486-- non surgical abortion methods. The proposed bill would be a way of stopping that.

He's just proposing it to stir shit up. If such a bill actually passed, its chances of surviving judicial review would be zero.

21 docproto48  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 6:31:14pm

re: #14 Romantic Heretic

These people really have trouble with the concept of freedom of speech, don't they?

No not at all:
They would have all the freedom of speech you have to buy it
Its called privatizing freedom of speech

22 theheat  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 6:45:26pm

re: #4 dragonfire1981

No, it would then be called a "bipartisan effort."
//

23 boxhead  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 6:50:23pm

re: #9 Kruk

If you claim to love the Constitution, you could at least read the blessed thing:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You hear that, Congress? They're talking about you. Specifically.

Can't we get a law passed that will penalize any lawmaker proposing a law that violates the US Constitution? Something like what we see in sports. A two week suspension without pay would be nice. Or even better from the NHL, two weeks in the penalty box without a replacement for the offender.

see, all we need to learn in life can be found in sports... :)

24 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:26:26pm

re: #20 Dark_Falcon

He's just proposing it to stir shit up. If such a bill actually passed, its chances of surviving judicial review would be zero.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Do you ever reach a point where you stand back and say, "Stop wasting my time; stop wasting the country's time?"

25 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 9:18:29pm

Anyone remember Anthony Comstock? Postal Inspector who declared that pornography couldn't be sent thru the mail. ANYTHING to do with reproductive health was considered pornography by him.

He went head-to-head with Margaret Sanger.

Guess who won?

26 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 9:22:16pm

The Comstock Law needs to be repeals in it's entirety--officially.

Contraception

In 1915, architect William Sanger was charged under the New York law against disseminating contraceptive information.[7] In 1918, his wife Margaret Sanger was similarly charged. On appeal, her conviction was reversed on the grounds that contraceptive devices could legally be promoted for the cure and prevention of disease.[8]

The prohibition of devices advertised for the explicit purpose of birth control was not overturned for another eighteen years. During World War I, U.S. Servicemen were the only members of the Allied forces sent overseas without condoms which led to more widespread STDs among U.S. troops. In 1932, Sanger arranged for a shipment of diaphragms to be mailed from Japan to a sympathetic doctor in New York City. When U.S. customs confiscated the package as illegal contraceptive devices, Sanger helped file a lawsuit. In 1936, a federal appeals court ruled in United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries that the federal government could not interfere with doctors providing contraception to their patients.[8]

In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut struck down one of the remaining contraception Comstock laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts. However, Griswold only applied to marital relationships. Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried persons as well.

27 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 9:22:51pm

re: #24 goddamnedfrank

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Not with DeMint. Saying that wouldn't get any positive results. He'd just keep on chugging along. And a waste of time is all this is. But DeMint is too powerful to ignore, so you oppose him covertly rather than openly.

28 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 9:32:41pm

re: #26 ggt

I have never liked "Griswold v. Connecticut". I don't really think the Supreme Court should have gotten involved. Instead, the court claimed a right to privacy (on dubious reasoning), and Griswold became the foundation for a whole raft of SCOTUS interventions. It would have been better if the public had been required to pressure the state legislature in Connecticut in order to repeal the law.

But make no mistake, the Comstock law was a bad law. My beef is with how it was done away with, not that it was done away with.

29 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 9:39:04pm

re: #28 Dark_Falcon

I have never liked "Griswold v. Connecticut". I don't really think the Supreme Court should have gotten involved. Instead, the court claimed a right to privacy (on dubious reasoning), and Griswold became the foundation for a whole raft of SCOTUS interventions. It would have been better if the public had been required to pressure the state legislature in Connecticut in order to repeal the law.

But make no mistake, the Comstock law was a bad law. My beef is with how it was done away with, not that it was done away with.

With an Equal Rights Amendment --how else could it be done?

Reproductive Rights are basic, yet they have been used as a means of controlling not just women, but whole populations by powerful men for a very long time. Having or not having a child is a private matter.

30 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 9:44:12pm

re: #29 ggt

With an Equal Rights Amendment --how else could it be done?

Reproductive Rights are basic, yet they have been used as a means of controlling not just women, but whole populations by powerful men for a very long time. Having or not having a child is a private matter.

The Connecticut legislature could have simply repealed the law. That would have been the proper course of action.

31 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 9:50:20pm

re: #30 Dark_Falcon

The Connecticut legislature could have simply repealed the law. That would have been the proper course of action.

Frankly, I think we need a Federal Law. The Supreme Court's legislature from the Bench was necessary.

the States use "States Rights" to abuse people too often. This is one situation in which Human Rights need to be defined and enforced on a Federal Level.

How many years later and we are still fighting over basic reproductive rights?

I am so tired of people using G-d to justify exploitation and discrimination.

32 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 9:59:49pm

re: #31 ggt

Frankly, I think we need a Federal Law. The Supreme Court's legislature from the Bench was necessary.

the States use "States Rights" to abuse people too often. This is one situation in which Human Rights need to be defined and enforced on a Federal Level.

How many years later and we are still fighting over basic reproductive rights?

I am so tired of people using G-d to justify exploitation and discrimination.

On that, you and I do not agree. I do not think it is proper for judges to do such a thing. If they do not like a law, but it is not in violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is in my mind obligated to let it stand. Repeal of bad laws is a matter for the legislature.

33 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Wed, Oct 19, 2011 10:23:13pm

re: #32 Dark_Falcon

On that, you and I do not agree. I do not think it is proper for judges to do such a thing. If they do not like a law, but it is not in violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is in my mind obligated to let it stand. Repeal of bad laws is a matter for the legislature.

I don't particularly like it either, but Justice doesn't seem to be the motivation of Congress.


This page 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
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 116 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 277 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1