Of course they did. The Jews didn't claim Moses's writings (or those attributed to him) were the first laws ever. They claim they are special and different than other laws that came before because they were given to the Israelites by God. And that's the thing that makes their posting in public school classrooms a problem. That and the fact that the first three of them are specifically religious laws, so the mandatory posting of them is establishment. The state is betting that the SCOTUS is going to gut the establishment clause if given the chance, just like they've wilfully misinterpreted the freedom of religion clause of the 1st Amendment.
A Johns Hopkins study found that the Texas abortion ban led to an increase in infant deaths during their first year of life.
Read in The Guardian: https://apple.news/AM3aFfY45T-iCEx-y4Ee5vQ
So more pregnancies forced to carried to term even when they predicted that the infants would have all kinds of health issues and would need medical intervention to be kept alive. Greater infant mortality as a result.
Read in The Guardian: https://apple.news/AM3aFfY45T-iCEx-y4Ee5vQ
So more pregnancies forced to carried to term even when they predicted that the infants would have all kinds of health issues and would need medical intervention to be kept alive. Greater infant mortality as a result.
Conservatives in a bunch of states also want to end no-fault divorce.
www.theguardian.com
Conservative US lawmakers are pushing for an end to no-fault divorce
Republicans in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas have discussed eliminating or restricting such cases
www.theguardian.com
No abortions, fewer divorces, and of course shotgun marriages when their abstinence-only kids wind up teen pregnant because they don't know about condoms and the pill.
This is what they want for everyone.
This is what they want for everyone.
No fault divorce was created for reasons. Texans will get to rediscover the reasons.Conservatives in a bunch of states also want to end no-fault divorce.
Conservative US lawmakers are pushing for an end to no-fault divorce
Republicans in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas have discussed eliminating or restricting such cases
It's not what they want, but they're too stupid to reason out consequences.
Texas women will discover these reasons anew, all right.
How does divorce work if the spouse is in a different state with different laws?
handwave We'll sue her for crossing state lines to break our laws! flail Look, SQUIRREL!
My guess, you take away her car keys. Indeed, why should she even know hot to drive?
This whole direction starts to remind me stories about kidnapping their own children (or sisters, grandkids, etc.) in USA, and send them to other countries for marriage....
The probable line of attack is more likely to be to take way the ability to get lines of credit and bank accounts in their own names.My guess, you take away her car keys. Indeed, why should she even know hot to drive?
Don't give them ideas. Anyway, the elimination of no fault divorce is going back to Before Times, when people in bad relationships just left and didn't look back. The thing it prevented was people with not a lot of resources being able to get remarried or disentangled from their spouses' legal liabilities. It'll be plenty more work for private investigators and divorce attorneys and judges, so there's that.
The inability to get child support, spousal support, or a custody order seem like pretty significant problems as well. Plus the need to litigate and prove cause for divorce. An awful lot of women with limited resources would be trapped in terrible marriages.
It’s the whole point! I was just gently noting that Shavano’s comment that “people in bad relationships just left and didn’t look back” is prohibitively difficult for a lot of people.
Just one more checkmark in the long line of "I want the right to be as shitty as I desire to other people, while taking away their right to get away from me." It's "laws to empower me and constrain you" in its purest form.
Very generally, States exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the marriage status of any "resident" of that State. The State where the divorce is filed applies its law to determine who is a resident, and applies its procedure. Due process (the constitutional procedural right to notice and an opportunity to be heard) requires the non-resident spouse be served, but every State has a long arm statutes that spells out what is sufficient process for non-residents. The State of the other non-resident spouse is constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of any other State.
Yet far lower than the 100% mortality rate of abortions would be.
Not any definition you're working with, apparently. Others, myself included, rather disagree with that statement.
I simply offer a different perspective than the consensus in this thread. A somewhat higher infant mortality rate is to be expected if you don't kill them before they qualify as infants. Yet many "certain to die" babies survive and live quite happy lives. It is certainly a topic of discussion in anti-abortion circles.
No, you don't get to play definition games. A fetus, point blank, is not an infant. An infant must be born, no exceptions. And the percentage of "certain to die" babies that beat all odds to live fulfilling lives is literally a rounding error in the stats.
I don’t think that’s entirely obvious, they could also be cultivating an electorate cruel enough to make their re-elections easy. Enact enough shit regulations that anybody with smarts and resources leaves. Then make it too hard for people with smarts but no resources to vote. Recipe for a red state.
And forcing women to go all the way to the line of almost dying of sepsis before they can abort a fetus that is already going to die is reprehensible.
I don’t really see the point in arguing over something as fundamental as whether or not a fetus is a baby or not, it seems like something that somebody could only disagree on if we truly have no common ground. Some lines of discussion (not actually argument, since trying to swap in some made up definition is not actually an argument) should just be ignored I think.
At least I think that’s the line of discussion, actually it is interesting to note that the forum software even hides quotes from ignored users.
Because it's ground we must absolutely refuse to cede. Not only because it's wrong on basic facts, but because we know for a fact bad actors will use the non-argument to try and claim that everyone agrees with their bullshit definition.
It's also a fundamental stepping stone to fetuses being people and having a right to due process and equal protection. It also automatically makes abortions homicide.
It completely changes the framing of the entire debate.
No, not gonna do it.
It completely changes the framing of the entire debate.
No, not gonna do it.
Infant - Wikipedia
Not gonna put up with attempts to redefine the word to serve political purposes. That way leads to cultishness. It's of apiece with the politicians who want to throw around the term "pre-born children." It's a cynical attempt to drag conversation their way dishonestly by hijacking the meanings of words.
You want to talk about infants? Talk about children who are already born. Period. Anything earlier and you're engaging in dishonest revisionism.
Never mind that there's a development process going on and the older the fetus gets, the more capable of is of suffering, and a great number of those incompatible with life situations impose a great deal of suffering before death finally arrives which could easily be prevented with an abortion. So, regardless, this increase in infant mortality is certainly linked to higher degrees of suffering, both for the child and parents.
If Texas wants to make themselves a place where the easy button for getting out of a bad marriage is murder, they're on the right track.
Who do you think is going to push that button most frequently, and who do you think is most likely to be punished for pushing it?
That's one of the aspect of those abortion bans that I find nothing short of ghoulish.
There are a subset of pregnancies we know as a fact are non-viable. IE, the baby, if born, will not survive (missing organs, deformitites incompatible with life,...).
The humane decision here is to abort that foetus when it is nothing more than a clump of cells and NOT let that foetus mature into a living being that can feel pain. There are now babies in the united states who are born incapable of life outside of the womb and all their parents can do is hold it in their arms till that poor being dies in pain, fear and anguish. It is a monstruous thing to force onto the parents and pure sadism to force such pain and anguish onto a baby.
There is no defending this and I for one have nothing but scorn and loathing for anyone who forces that outcome onto anyone either intentionally or as a collateral consequence of their legislative agenda.
Oklahoma's superintendent, Ryan Walters, says that classrooms should have a bible and that the 10 commandments should be taught. I guess this is in response to that Christian charter school that got shot down?
www.rollingstone.com
Oklahoma Superintendent Commands Schools to Teach the Bible
Oklahoma’s Superintendent Ryan Walters has issued a directive commanding state’s classrooms to teach the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
www.rollingstone.com
Who ever thought that Inherit the Wind would become a modern documentary?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW0vtST5BB0
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNdYsoool8
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW0vtST5BB0
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNdYsoool8
People like me who've been watching Creationists for the last 20+ years. This is old news, regardless of the date on the article. Shit like this goes on all the time. Ars has even written about stuff like it before, years ago. December 20th is going to be the 19th Kitzmas. Let's hope we don't have to name a new one.
wow. Are we going to get the thread title changed to galloping theocracy?Oklahoma's superintendent, Ryan Walters, says that classrooms should have a bible and that the 10 commandments should be taught. I guess this is in response to that Christian charter school that got shot down?
Oklahoma Superintendent Commands Schools to Teach the Bible
Oklahoma’s Superintendent Ryan Walters has issued a directive commanding state’s classrooms to teach the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
Sorry, didn't see a relevant topic and didn't think this warranted a new thread.
Edit: Duh, I just got your joke. Long day
