That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Yeah, don't trust but verify to find out where the deceptive lie is.stessier wrote:I didn't know about where our laws stood compared to the rest of the world and was surprised to hear part of Graham's speech saying our laws were less restrictive than Europe.
Here's why that isn't quite what it seems.
In my defense, I was edit-bammed. That wasn't posted originally.
University of Idaho employees were warned Friday that they could be charged with a felony for talking about abortion, because of the state’s new abortion law.
They were also told *they could no longer provide birth control.*
Not just Plan B, but regular birth control.
That sounds like bs. There is still the 1st. So they can talk about it but they may not be able to teach it as part of a school courseSmoove_B wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 6:19 pm What the hell?
University of Idaho employees were warned Friday that they could be charged with a felony for talking about abortion, because of the state’s new abortion law.
They were also told *they could no longer provide birth control.*
Not just Plan B, but regular birth control.
It's not bs - the language is in the statute included in the text above. It isn't about "talking about it" in the political sense. The limit on the "speech" is around the advertising of services. Commercial speech has different standards than political speech. IIRC usually the balancing test usually revolves around truthful commercial speech but I could see the test being extended to advertising services deemed illegal now. In any case, someone might be inclined to test this to see if courts break their way. The only downside would be potentially exposing themselves to felony criminal risk and loss of medical license. No big deal, right?UsulofDoom wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:17 pmThat sounds like bs. There is still the 1st. So they can talk about it but they may not be able to teach it as part of a school courseSmoove_B wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 6:19 pm What the hell?
University of Idaho employees were warned Friday that they could be charged with a felony for talking about abortion, because of the state’s new abortion law.
They were also told *they could no longer provide birth control.*
Not just Plan B, but regular birth control.
without being fired from teaching.
State Sen. Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, said in 2019 that women should be charged with murder if they violated his proposed abortion ban.
In an interview with Pennsylvania radio station WITF, Mastriano was pressed about a bill he sponsored that would generally bar abortions when a fetal heartbeat could first be detected, usually around six weeks. Mastriano’s remarks in that interview were previously unreported.
Under his proposed legislation, Mastriano was asked whether a woman who decided to get an abortion at 10 weeks gestation would be charged with murder. Critics of the bill Mastriano backed, and of other "heartbeat bills," say the approximate six-week timeframe is often before many women know they are pregnant.
"OK, let’s go back to the basic question there," Mastriano said. "Is that a human being? Is that a little boy or girl? If it is, it deserves equal protection under the law."
Asked if he was saying yes, they should be charged with murder, Mastriano responded: "Yes, I am."
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton fled his home in a truck driven by his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, to avoid being served a subpoena Monday, according to an affidavit filed in federal court.
Ernesto Martin Herrera, a process server, was attempting to serve the state’s top attorney with a subpoena for a federal court hearing Tuesday in a lawsuit from nonprofits that want to help Texans pay for abortions out of state. Later on Monday, Paxton filed two requests: a motion to quash the subpoena and another to seal the certificates of service, which included the affidavit from process server. His lawyers argued that the server “loitered at the Attorney General’s home for over an hour, repeatedly shouted at him, and accosted” Paxton and his wife. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman granted both requests early Tuesday, hours after the affidavit had been published.
They're using the "abundance of caution" approach until it's clear.Smoove_B wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 6:19 pm What the hell?
University of Idaho employees were warned Friday that they could be charged with a felony for talking about abortion, because of the state’s new abortion law.
They were also told *they could no longer provide birth control.*
Not just Plan B, but regular birth control.
You still need a dr. to write the prescription.Jaymann wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 2:02 pm I wonder if you fill your prescription online through Mark Cuban's website, do they start opening your mail?
Doesn't she already have that? And if not, aren't there out of state doctors who would?
In some parts of the country, you'll be hard-pressed to find a pharmacist who'll fill such a prescription.Alefroth wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:10 pm It was a Walgreen's pharmacist that denied filling it. Can they just go to another pharmacy?
On the one hand, I'm happy to see the outreach and recognition of the need. On the other hand...With a growing number of patients in states that now prohibit abortion traveling for the procedure, Planned Parenthood says it will soon open its first mobile abortion clinic in the country, in southern Illinois.
...
The mobile clinic will begin offering consultations and dispensing abortion pills later this year. It will operate within Illinois, where abortion remains legal, but will be able to travel closer to neighboring states' borders, reducing the distance many patients travel for the procedure.
"It gives us a lot of flexibility about where to be," Rodriguez said.
...
The mobile facility – set up inside of an RV – will include a small waiting area, laboratory, and two exam rooms. It initially will provide medication abortion up to 11 weeks gestation, officials said. It eventually will offer surgical abortions, likely beginning sometime next year.
Patients seeing healthcare providers at the mobile clinic will follow the same protocol as those visiting a permanent Planned Parenthood facility, said to Dr. Colleen McNicholas, chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood in the region. They take mifepristone - the first in a two-drug protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration - on-site. They're offered counseling about the other drug, misoprostol, which is taken later.
"The only thing that will change is the fact that now they might only have to drive five hours instead of nine hours," she said.
They're more likely to need a Mad Max style convoy - that's where the real danger is. You know the location and destination will be tweeted constantly, and it's only a matter of time before there is a plan to intercept them enroute.Smoove_B wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:09 pm As I noted, they better have a security attachment and I'd almost expect it to be behind bollards and sandbags, possibly protected by a tower and MG nest. I would be surprised if it wasn't targeted, especially during an election year.
More:John barely slept in the days after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade this summer. When he first saw the news, he immediately thought of his daughter, who had just turned 8, and how he’d do anything to protect her. He had admittedly not been thinking about abortion rights when he donned a MAGA hat at rallies to support Trump’s tough-on-crime agenda back in 2020. Why would he be? Though John was personally against ending a pregnancy, he felt strongly that everyone should have a choice. At the time, that choice was federally protected.
...
There is no way he can look his daughter in the eye and say, “I’m going to vote for the government to tell you what to do if you get raped” and become pregnant. He isn’t alone. Over the summer, at swim and soccer practices, John stood around with other conservative fathers, talking through their feelings of guilt, remorse, and anger toward a party that wants to control their children’s bodies. “There are so many dads pissed off” at the Republicans, he says. “The dads are coming to vote them out.”
Let's not forget the Libertarians:The enraged fathers I spoke with are now laser-focused on what they can help control: the races in their state. Chris Pauley hopes a deluge of dads spurs a blue wave in the Pennsylvania midterms. Up until this year, the 47-year-old was a lifelong Republican who threw his support behind “middle of the road” politicians like John McCain and Mitt Romney. He used to care most about issues like a strong military and a secure border and never thought Roe was in question. Pauley lives in a swing state that plays a big role in determining which party will control Congress, and any other year, he’d likely be eyeing GOP candidates who were more moderate than Trump. But the restaurant manager can no longer support anti-abortion politicians like Doug Mastriano, who is running for governor, or Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is vying for the U.S. Senate. Pauley calls the Supreme Court decision a “huge miscalculation” that will push centrist GOP lifers like himself away from the Republican Party.
And it’s not just dyed-in-the-wool conservative fathers who are changing their vote. I spoke with a 29-year-old Libertarian who values the right to choose more than he despises the Democrats, a party he “completely disagrees with” on most things except for social-justice issues. Josiah Irwin votes in Oklahoma, which effectively banned all abortions a month before Roe was even overturned. Above all, the marine cares about individual freedom. Since Irwin’s own party has recently become anti-abortion, the Supreme Court’s decision has pushed him to support Democrats in the midterms. The right to an abortion is “a liberty that has existed in our country for the past 50 years, and we’re going to get rid of it randomly?” he says. “I’d rather be in a shitty free country [than] in a country that is not free.”
While Irwin feels no personal culpability in the demise of Roe — “Everyone blames you for their candidate losing,” he says of voting Libertarian — some of the dads I spoke with were contrite. John, the army vet, says he blindly helped the GOP execute a long-term strategy. “This 100 percent falls on people like me,” he says, “who vote without realizing the full consequences.” Ling feels “guilty” that it took such an extreme development for him to prioritize abortion as an issue.
That would be silly. You just train the brown shirt kids to narc on them.Victoria Raverna wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 1:07 am How do you prohibit abortion travelling? Ban all pregnant women from travelling?
Potentially states like Alabama might pass laws that make it a crime to travel out of state for purposes of getting an abortion. So woman goes from Alabama to New York (say), gets an abortion, and then gets arrested when they return to Alabama.Victoria Raverna wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 1:07 am How do you prohibit abortion traveling? Ban all pregnant women from traveling?
Barely a blip in the news.Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) on Tuesday blocked a unanimous consent request to pass a bill that would have set federal protections for IVF and other fertility treatments whose future remains uncertain in the post-Roe era.
The big picture: Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who introduced the legislation, requested to pass it through unanimous consent — meaning the bill would have been considered passed if there were no objections — in response to concerns that abortion restrictions can apply to assisted reproductive technologies. The Right To Build Families Act would have prohibited limiting an individual from seeking or receiving fertility treatments and would have created a federal right to assisted reproductive technology.
This is the second piece of legislation related to reproductive health that has been introduced by Democrats and blocked by Republicans in the aftermath of the June Dobbs decision. The Right to Contraception Act, which looked to federally protect birth control use, passed the House but was blocked by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) in July.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina Supreme Court struck down Thursday a ban on abortion after cardiac activity is detected — typically around six weeks — ruling the restriction violates the state constitution’s right to privacy.
The decision comes nearly two years after Republican Gov. Henry McMaster signed the measure into law. The ban, which included exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest or pregnancies that endangered the patient’s life, drew lawsuits almost immediately. Since then, legal challenges have made their way through both state and federal courts.
“The State unquestionably has the authority to limit the right of privacy that protects women from state interference with her decision, but any such limitation must be reasonable and it must be meaningful in that the time frames imposed must afford a woman sufficient time to determine she is pregnant and to take reasonable steps to terminate that pregnancy. Six weeks is, quite simply, not a reasonable period of time for these two things to occur, and therefore the Act violates our state Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable invasions of privacy,” Justice Kaye Hearn wrote in the majority opinion.
One week after the federal government made it easier to get abortion pills, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said Tuesday that women in Alabama who use those pills to end pregnancies could be prosecuted.
That’s despite wording in Alabama’s new Human Life Protection Act that criminalizes abortion providers and prevents its use against the people receiving abortions. Instead, the attorney general’s office said Alabama could rely on an older law, one initially designed to protect children from meth lab fumes.
“The Human Life Protection Act targets abortion providers, exempting women ‘upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed’ from liability under the law,” Marshall said in an emailed statement. “It does not provide an across-the-board exemption from all criminal laws, including the chemical-endangerment law—which the Alabama Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed protects unborn children.”
The House GOP majority plans to vote this week on three measures aimed at emphasizing its opposition to abortion, including a rules package that will fast-track consideration of legislation permanently banning federal funding of abortion.
It's also scheduled to vote later this week on a bill addressing GOP concerns about infants who survive an attempted abortion and a measure condemning attacks on anti-abortion groups and facilities.
The trio of measures come after House Democrats last year voted on a frenzy of abortion rights bills in the wake of the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which overturned the federal right to an abortion.
Taken together, the GOP measures will likely further cement that abortion policy changes for either side will have to come from the state level or the Biden administration.
This is probably a dumb question, but does this actually happen? I know it doesn’t in the regular course of things, but even as an exceptional case, is this really a thing?malchior wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:53 pm Rules package fast tracks federal abortion funding ban but it likely will go nowhere except to fuel the media cycle on both sides.
It's also scheduled to vote later this week on a bill addressing GOP concerns about infants who survive an attempted abortion and a measure condemning attacks on anti-abortion groups and facilities.
Probably not but we're way past truth or facts. I'm sure someone out there could explain how this might happen but I suspect it is not supposed to address something that happens but inject more 'what if' scenarios that impact liability and institutional thinking. One thing we have heard is they've upped their game on their effort to "break" things. Instead of swinging hammers they're planning to take scalpels to things for the meantime.Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:58 pmThis is probably a dumb question, but does this actually happen? I know it doesn’t in the regular course of things, but even as an exceptional case, is this really a thing?malchior wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:53 pm Rules package fast tracks federal abortion funding ban but it likely will go nowhere except to fuel the media cycle on both sides.
It's also scheduled to vote later this week on a bill addressing GOP concerns about infants who survive an attempted abortion and a measure condemning attacks on anti-abortion groups and facilities.
