I swear the people in charge doing this dumb shit have many hidden vices and take out on everyone else out of insecurity and screwing others over just to feel better about themselves. This is why you don't ever let biatch-in-a-boxstand in charge and that same biatch put other bitches in charger. Those pulling this can screw off.
Err, doesn't that argument also mean you almost can't regulate the medical industry at all? As well as virtually all drug laws (after all, restricting the sale of meth [or Vioxx or whatever] is just as much a restriction of your ability to enact your right to bodily autonomy to consume meth as restricting what medical practitioners might perform abortion is to your ability to enact your right to bodily autonomy to have one performed on you[ or literally any other surgical procedure conceivable]). Hell, you could start toppling a whole lot of laws under that argument and be halfway to a minarchist libertarian hellscape before lunch, if you can't regulate anything you do with your body or force anyone to do anything with their body or any industry that might as an effect restrict what one might do with their body...
This just sounds like chartering ships to Sealand to have abortions performed without restriction would be a better alternative. Or building another Sealand-style artificial island in international waters closer to the US. Then they'd have to illegalize leaving the country to do the thing. Which the government definitely can do, as that's how they handle people going abroad to have sex with kids in places where that's either not illegal or not enforced.
Dems are secretly giddy about this, because their entire platform for winning elections is "Republicans are terrifying, vote for us!" I suspect the leak will end up having been by someone on the right side of the isle, specifically so this will be less "fresh" news by election time. It being the big thing to discuss now is better for the GOP than it being the big thing to discuss any time in the future through November. Voters have notoriously short memories.
People almost never seek to traumatise their child. But if they're unready to raise them, it frequently leads to neglect.
Not usually, but if it was the parent... imagine a man and his daughter crash in a remote area. She's bleeding out. EMTs get there, but she's not gonna make it to the hospital alive, she needs a blood transfusion, and the only blood of the right type available is her father's blood. The EMT's ask the dad if he'll let them use his blood and he responds "Nah". And they're like "your daughter is going to die", and he responds "my body, my choice, and frankly I'm a sucky dad, so it's probably more responsible to let her die anyway."
Not all of them, but many of them. More importantly, the public perception of abortion needs to change, and even if every state adopted the legal framework of Roe v Wade, not treating it as a consitutionally guaranteed right can go a long way toward people considering "hey, this might be kinda totally heinous."
Not a complete outlier, but worse than the average for sure.
Probably to some extent, this will rile up the base and get people to the polls, it does show that republicans will pull shit like this. I have been hearing people speculate that the leak came from a right winger, but this is also an early draft and with an early enough leak and them being able to see the reaction, they might change things before the actual ruling to lessen the scope. For the mid terms.
Theyve done studies on this
He's not sticking his head in the sand, like a true conservative he just doesn't give a flying fuck. Like a true pro-lifer he cares about the "pure" concept of pregnancy, but doesn't fucking care about the actual impact, outcome, or future a pregnancy might hold for someone. Don't actually listen to or help people, just hold on to your fairy tale idea of life being sacred.
Yeah, you continue not giving a fuck like the good christian you are.
No, I think the mothers believed he would stick around. But that's besides the point really.
Why? What good argument can you make that says it's legally and morally okay for a stranger to let someone die but not a parent?
Even assuming the premise, I disagree with this idea. The responsibility required to have foresight and planning is a much higher bar than just rising to the occasions presented to you. It's relatively easy to take things as they come compared to planning years in advance.
Custody? Let's go with custody.
Your intense fatalism is noted. I believe in progress.
Is that all you think parenting asks of someone? To "take things as they come"?
So a divorced dad with visitation but not custody is exempt? You're drawing some really weird and arbitrary lines for somebody who wants to save lives
Tell me you didn't think that standard through without telling me you didn't think that standard through. Does proximity matter? Daughter gets in an accident with dad 5 miles away at the hotel, can the government still drag dad down and murder him to maybe save her life?
BuT yOu GuYz, ThE rEpUbLiCaNs WoUlDn'T dO tHaT
Women need to be forcibly kept celibate until I get them, so that they have no way to know how small my penis is and how bad I am in the sack.
