Misogynist barbarians in Alabama impose forced pregnancy law

[bluescreen]

It seems like a fairly significant difference, in that the majority of women responding say they're pro-choice and the majority of men responding who express an opinion say they're not?

It really does depend on the actual questions asked.

 

[Poot]

It really does depend on the actual questions asked.

Yeah, I think that's very true. In some ways it's a question of how you identify rather than what you believe.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

no you may be right - they just seem to be ineffectual and not actually challenging the republicans in any useful way

I'm not 100% convinced they aren't complicit. If you look at Pelosi over the years, she's really done nothing to advance abortion rights. Recently, she endorsed an anti-choice candidate over a pro-choice candidate in California. You have to remember that she was raised Catholic (and continues to be an active Catholic). So, I suspect she's really anti-abortion, but tries to portray herself as pro-choice to get elected. TBH, she's a corrupt as fuck financially too. She's been caught several times buying stock in response to votes within the Senate, while also voting against rules that prevent her doing that. She needs to go. And her little dog, Schumer, too.

<edited to add>
Naturally, this is their fundraising wet dream. I've received several messages like this in the last week:

I’m so disgusted, I can hardly type this email.

-- Minutes ago, Senate Democrats took a historic vote to SAVE Roe v. Wade's protections from decimation

-- But I just watched every single Republican Senator vote against this bill and BLOCK it.

I can’t change what they’ve done -- but I can make them regret it.

I’m calling for a MASSIVE response – 10,000 gifts before midnight -- to kick every last Republican Senator OUT of office for what they’ve just done. Will you step up with $15 in this moment and help me show these Republicans we’re coming for every last one of their seats? >>

If Republicans think we're going to let them rip reproductive rights from millions of women…

If they think we’re going to sit back and allow them to remain in office…

If they think we’re going to forget what they’ve done by the time voters go to the polls…

We’re going to prove them absolutely wrong.

I need a HISTORIC response -- 10,000 gifts before midnight -- to FLATTEN Republicans in this election and make them rue the day they ever came after our reproductive rights.

Please stand with me and rush $15 to show Republicans their days in office are numbered.

They won't be getting anything from me. I'm sick of endless calls for cash, while accomplishing fuckall.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

This doesn't surprise me, except for the fact that the list of donors is broader than I would have expected. I expected to see Walmart and Koch Industries here, but didn't expect At&T and others:

he last time you filled up at Exxon, grabbed paper towels at Walmart, or paid your AT&T bill, your dollars may have been used to fund a potentially imminent wave of state abortion bans.

An Insider investigation found that contributions from dozens of well-known corporations or their affiliated PACs have played a decisive role in bankrolling the lawmakers behind 13 state "trigger laws," written to take effect as soon as the landmark Roe v. Wade decision is overturned.

The state legislators and governors responsible for these laws, passed between 2005 and 2022, are overwhelmingly Republican, and they relied heavily on Republican parties and political action committees for campaign contributions. But they were also backed by companies that are part of your daily life, such as ATT, Comcast Corporation, CVS Caremark, Citigroup, Walmart, Anheuser-Busch, Exxon Mobil, and United Parcel Services, which each gave more than $150,000 to the effort – and in some cases, far more.

Some of these familiar brands have been endorsed by pro-choice celebrities, including feminist icons Serena Williams and Rosario Dawson, who have each served as paid spokeswomen for AT&T. AT&T gave more than $1 million to politicians behind the bills in all 13 trigger law states.

Singer John Legend, who teamed up with Walgreens on a COVID vaccine awareness campaign, once suggested Hollywood should boycott Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, and other states that pass restrictive abortion laws. "I don't know if it definitely will work, but I know that money talks," Legend said in 2019. Walgreens gave more than $76,000 to backers of the bills in seven states.

Some of the companies are known as conservative political donors, such as the free-market focused Koch Industries and subsidiaries, whose owners have bankrolled the effort to pack the courts with conservatives, and the tax services and technology firm Ryan LLC, and Clay Cooley GMC Investments, whose principals have spoken out against abortion rights. Other companies' contribution decisions may have had nothing to do with abortion. But their contributions still played a significant role in sustaining the legislative sponsors of abortion trigger laws and the governors who signed them into law.

"I confidently — in large part — assume the intent wasn't to enable an extremist social agenda across many issues," said Jen Stark, senior director of corporate strategy at the Tara Health Foundation, which funds reproductive and maternal health. "But at the same time, women and other communities have now become the collateral damage of companies not minding who they were propping up."

Trigger laws have been enacted in Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. The laws impose statewide abortion bans, with narrow exemptions, if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade as expected since Politico published a leaked draft of the conservative majority's opinion.


Insider used Followthemoney.org data, based on state and federal election filings, to examine all political donations to 380 state lawmakers who sponsored or cosponsored the laws and the 13 governors who signed them. The analysis covered donations for the election cycle immediately prior to the passage of each law, as well as all subsequent cycles.

The analysis found that corporate contributions to these politicians eclipse those from anti-abortion organizations.

The Texas Alliance for Life, Idaho Chooses Life, and other anti-abortion groups gave nearly $56,000, combined, to those legislative sponsors and governors. More than 160 companies gave more than that.

The Friedkin Group, a consortium of companies that includes one of the world's largest independent Toyota distributors, donated more than $1.05 million — more than any other company. The largest public corporation, AT&T, donated nearly $1.02 million, the Insider analysis found.

AT&T and Pfizer were the only two companies that backed politicians behind trigger laws in all 13 states.

A likely wave of state abortion bans was bankrolled by corporations such as AT&T, Walmart, and Citi

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Inside the last abortion clinic in Oklahoma

In the US, Democrats in the Senate have failed to get a bill passed that would enshrine women's right to abortion in federal law. They were trying to combat the anticipated overturning by the Supreme Court of the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that protected abortion rights for half a…

www.channel4.com

 

[AmateurAgitator]

The Four Thieves Vinegar Collective first demonstrated how to make misoprostol tablets, which are used to induce an abortion, at the Please Try This at Home conference in Pittsburgh in 2019. Last year, after Texas passed a near total abortion ban, Mixael Laufer, who runs the collective, published a 17-minute video explaining how to make the pills at home.

Anarchist Collective Shares Instructions to Make DIY Abortion Pills

DIY medicine collectives are preparing for the horrifying prospect that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

www.vice.com

 

[spring-peeper]

The Four Thieves Vinegar Collective first demonstrated how to make misoprostol tablets, which are used to induce an abortion, at the Please Try This at Home conference in Pittsburgh in 2019. Last year, after Texas passed a near total abortion ban, Mixael Laufer, who runs the collective, published a 17-minute video explaining how to make the pills at home.

Anarchist Collective Shares Instructions to Make DIY Abortion Pills

DIY medicine collectives are preparing for the horrifying prospect that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

www.vice.com

The last paragraph got to me...the projected number of deaths once the ban comes into place.

The fact that he had to make the video at all speaks to the horrifying nature of the world we’re finding ourselves in, and the potential lengths women might need to go to to have an abortion in a world without the protections of Roe v. Wade. Endless research has shown that whether it is legal or not, women will still have abortions, and that, if it is illegal, those abortions will be much more dangerous. A recent study suggested that an abortion ban would lead to 21 percent increase in pregnancy-related deaths, and a 33 percent increase in pregnancy-related deaths among Black women.

 

[bcuster]

"...if you shoot a bear; you'd've better killed it"

https://www.thecut.com/article/marjorie-dannenfelser-abortion-roe-v-wade.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

[Poot]

The Four Thieves Vinegar Collective first demonstrated how to make misoprostol tablets, which are used to induce an abortion, at the Please Try This at Home conference in Pittsburgh in 2019. Last year, after Texas passed a near total abortion ban, Mixael Laufer, who runs the collective, published a 17-minute video explaining how to make the pills at home.

Anarchist Collective Shares Instructions to Make DIY Abortion Pills

DIY medicine collectives are preparing for the horrifying prospect that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

www.vice.com

It's a noble attempt but no one should be forced to take unregulated drugs, and you certainly shouldn't fuck around with things that can cause a miscarriage - it's contra indicated for all sorts of reasons. I know it's better than the alternative in a lot of cases, but ffs USA sort out some fucking healthcare for these people, you twats.

 

[spring-peeper]

Not too sure where to put this, I am so disgusted with the Canada's Supreme Court's ruling that allows people to use "extreme intoxication" as a valid defense against rape and other violent acts.

Canada’s top court says voluntary extreme intoxication a defence in violent crimes | Globalnews.ca

The Supreme Court of Canada ruling, called R. v. Brown, means an accused may be able to escape conviction if they can prove they were too intoxicated to control their actions.

globalnews.ca

 

[8ball]

Not too sure where to put this, I am so disgusted with the Canada's Supreme Court's ruling that allows people to use "extreme intoxication" as a valid defense against rape and other violent acts.

Canada’s top court says voluntary extreme intoxication a defence in violent crimes | Globalnews.ca

The Supreme Court of Canada ruling, called R. v. Brown, means an accused may be able to escape conviction if they can prove they were too intoxicated to control their actions.

globalnews.ca

Logic is a bit funny in light of drink-driving laws. I generally wouldn’t wipe out a family of pedestrians when driving my car, but might do if driving it while extremely drunk.

Or are they talking about some altered brain state (which has come up in cases before but I gather is used as an attempted defense much more than would feasibly happen)?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Is being intoxicated a defense against any other crimes in Canada?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Extreme alcohol intoxication can cause blackouts, sometimes lasting many hours. I've had many of them. I would guess that is the kind if thing they're getting at.

I would dispute the idea that an alcoholic blackout involves a state of unconsciousness or automatism, though. I think that's a mistake regarding what is going on. You are unable to lay down fresh memories - hence the hole in your memory the next day - but that doesn't mean you're unconscious in the moment. Indeed the people around you may very well not realise that you're in that state – although repeating something you said five minutes ago is a telltale sign.

That's not just a bad ruling from a practical point of view. I think it's wrong in its facts, regarding alcohol at least.

 

[spring-peeper]

Is being intoxicated a defense against any other crimes in Canada?

Not to my knowledge.

As far as I am concerned, you are responsible for yourself at all times.

Hubby is really upset - he feels that you know what you are doing when you are drunk. You may not remember what you did, but you made a decision to act at that time.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not too sure where to put this, I am so disgusted with the Canada's Supreme Court's ruling that allows people to use "extreme intoxication" as a valid defense against rape and other violent acts.

Canada’s top court says voluntary extreme intoxication a defence in violent crimes | Globalnews.ca

The Supreme Court of Canada ruling, called R. v. Brown, means an accused may be able to escape conviction if they can prove they were too intoxicated to control their actions.

globalnews.ca

That is a really shit decision. Perhaps the judges were drunk when they arrived at it

 

[two sheds]

That is a really shit decision. Perhaps the judges were drunk when they arrived at it

Quick, nip in and steal their watches and cars it's their own fault.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not to my knowledge.

As far as I am concerned, you are responsible for yourself at all times.

Hubby is really upset - he feels that you know what you are doing when you are drunk. You may not remember what you did, but you made a decision to act at that time.

Yep, he's right. 'I don't remember doing it' isn't in and of itself an excuse for anything. So what?

 

[8ball]

Yep, he's right. 'I don't remember doing it' isn't in and of itself an excuse for anything. So what?

Did have a nightmare once where I came to in a dream covered in blood standing over a couple of dead bodies. Has been a thing in films too. Not an alcohol thing, though, just my subconscious torturing me as it likes to do from time to time.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Did have a nightmare once where I came to in a dream covered in blood standing over a couple of dead bodies. Has been a thing in films too. Not an alcohol thing, though, just my subconscious torturing me as it likes to do from time to time.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that people are always responsible for what they do at all times. But in the narrow case of an alcoholic blackout, I think people are responsible for what they do in that state. If this ruling applies to alcohol, then it's a very bad ruling. Diminished ability to recall events does not necessarily equate to diminished responsibility.

 

[8ball]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that people are always responsible for what they do at all times. But in the narrow case of an alcoholic blackout, I think people are responsible for what they do in that state. If this ruling applies to alcohol, then it's a very bad ruling. Diminished ability to recall events does not necessarily equate to diminished responsibility.

I think it’s bad when I just think of all the women and children having to deal with domestic violence from men who have been drinking.

That’s going to be the first defense rolled out.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think it’s bad when I just think of all the women and children having to deal with domestic violence from men who have been drinking.

That’s going to be the first defense rolled out.

Let's hope it fails at the first hurdle.

I get violent when I'm drunk.

Well don't drink then.

 

[Ax^]

jesus if they allow the idea that drink turns you into a rapist that a very slippy scale

drink can bring out someones darkside but the rapist was their before the drink

just like people trying to say i was only racist due to intoxicants

no you are a fucking racist

 

[Ax^]

Logic is a bit funny in light of drink-driving laws. I generally wouldn’t wipe out a family of pedestrians when driving my car, but might do if driving it while extremely drunk.

Or are they talking about some altered brain state (which has come up in cases before but I gather is used as an attempted defense much more than would feasibly happen)?

reason i would give a 5 year ban and maybe 6 months in jail to anyone caught drink driving

you don't do it no matter how drunk you are like rape

 

[bluescreen]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that people are always responsible for what they do at all times. But in the narrow case of an alcoholic blackout, I think people are responsible for what they do in that state. If this ruling applies to alcohol, then it's a very bad ruling. Diminished ability to recall events does not necessarily equate to diminished responsibility.

(Unless they've been Mickey Finned) people are responsible for getting into that state, ergo responsible for what they do in it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

(Unless they've been Mickey Finned) people are responsible for getting into that state, ergo responsible for what they do in it.

I would put it a bit differently. You can be held accountable for your actions when drunk, whether you remember them afterwards or not. The flip side of that is that people can also get themselves into trouble when drunk through bad decision-making, and I wouldn't necessarily want to be harsh on them for that. But if you do things that hurt others, 'I was very drunk' isn't an excuse.

There could be a different argument in other situations, though, for instance if you were in a psychotic episode and attacked someone because you were mistakenly convinced that they were trying to kill you. Even if that delusion were the result of something you'd taken, I would still potentially consider that a state of diminished responsibility.

But neither of those are the state of 'unconscious automaton' referred to in the judgement. The first is just a case of someone not remembering afterwards, while the second is a case of someone acting on mistaken beliefs caused by perceiving things that aren't there.

 

[Ax^]

i would recommend a physc evaluation to give more insight that i went on a killing raping spree because of drink or drugs


something was wrong before you took the intoxicants

unconscious automaton my fucking arse

 

[bluescreen]

I would put it a bit differently. You can be held accountable for your actions when drunk, whether you remember them afterwards or not. The flip side of that is that people can also get themselves into trouble when drunk through bad decision-making, and I wouldn't necessarily want to be harsh on them for that. But if you do things that hurt others, 'I was very drunk' isn't an excuse.

There could be a different argument in other situations, though, for instance if you were in a psychotic episode and attacked someone because you were mistakenly convinced that they were trying to kill you. Even if that delusion were the result of something you'd taken, I would still potentially consider that a state of diminished responsibility.

But neither of those are the state of 'unconscious automaton' referred to in the judgement. The first is just a case of someone not remembering afterwards, while the second is a case of someone acting on mistaken beliefs caused by perceiving things that aren't there.

Fair comment. It's a long time since I studied it but as I remember English law draws a distinction between crimes of specific and basic intent, and intoxication isn't any defence to the latter, which include rape and manslaughter. It's quite a complicated subject.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Literally sleepwalking. That's the only state that might accurately be described as unconscious automaton that I can think of.

 

[Ax^]

Literally sleepwalking. That's the only state that might accurately be described as unconscious automaton that I can think of.

has been used as a defence in states

 

[AmateurAgitator]