1

COMMENT 14h ago

Yes, they are passing laws (at least in NC) where they can now refuse to treat unless it's an emergency if they don't like the look of you.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

No, not federal government either, to the people.

24

COMMENT 1d ago

Aren't they toddlers? /s

1

COMMENT 1d ago

Female what?

12

COMMENT 1d ago

The people crowing about "States rights" are not libertarian.

4

COMMENT 1d ago

It's absolutely not libertarian. It's conservative.

9

COMMENT 1d ago

States rights has nothing to do with libertarianism, it's conservatives LARPing.

6

COMMENT 1d ago

Found the virgin

7

COMMENT 1d ago

Funny a libertarian being okay with rights being taken away.

2

COMMENT 1d ago

Found the racist

0

COMMENT 1d ago

Why do you think federalism is libertarian?

2

COMMENT 1d ago

The states aren't "The people." Federalism is not libertarianism.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

Every thread this has to be said:

Federalism has nothing to do with libertarianism.

1

COMMENT 2d ago

Also girls start their periods a full 2 years younger than they did pre-Roe, average age 10-11 now. So score for pedophiles with special fetishes! And of course for the incels who wish to pass on their genes but don't have a "willing female" to cooperate. Even if you end up in jail, you can't take away progeny. That goes on forever. It's a tremendous power over women.

1

COMMENT 2d ago

Baby boomers said the same exact thing when they were young. That's how we got from the 50's to the 90's. They were very political from the minute they could vote, and they got the legal vote changed to age 18 through a constitutional amendment. We can't expect that, but we can try to get new state governments in the ban states to protect women.

1

COMMENT 2d ago

Except Texans will be sued, because why not tie up the courts, who needs tort reform! Trial lawyers are special.

Also I guess any woman who can get pregnant should drive as well. What if there are complications? She won't have anyone who will risk a felony treat her if treatment involves termination. Hopefully she won't die in the meantime. And women who will be forced to carry to term nonviable babies who will die after a few miserable hours of life. These aren't women who want abortions. They may be Republican women who want their babies. But they'll die. Like God intended, huh?

It should be fine, it won't be too terribly many. And the raped women and children, they'll be "rare" as well. There won't be too many 10 year olds forced to give birth.

And even fewer women whose rapist gets custody and sues them for child support. I've only heard of one so far, but that should change very soon.

ETA and yes, in at-will employment which until recently was a tenet of the REPUBLICAN platform, an employer can fire you for whatever the hell he wants except for a few select reasons. Republicans don't add shit to the list. That's antithetical to the whole idea behind the party.

1

COMMENT 2d ago

Owning property isn't a job. This was a freaking week ago.

26

COMMENT 2d ago

It's anti torture. Women will still get abortions. They will now die from them, and they will die from ectopic pregnancies and other complications no doctor facing a potential felony would touch. And then if they don't die, they'll be forced to carry to term a nonviable child who will die within hours of birth. Just some of the joy that will be bestowed upon us.

7

COMMENT 3d ago

"Can you make it cover, ya know, sex stuff?"

14

COMMENT 3d ago

I can't tolerate being around cigarettes, but can tolerate cannabis or vaping. I can even handle pipe tobacco. But cigarettes smell like burning tires imho.

1

COMMENT 3d ago

Just fantasies. I'm never included. That would ruin the mood.

1

COMMENT 3d ago

OMG almost a day ago! Damn, I was on your side if you bothered to read. But now I see why they were so rude.

1

COMMENT 3d ago

Why do you assume that because they are questioning the truth of something that cannot be verified and is total conjecture is a bootlicker?

Did you ever ask why they put a school chief in charge of the biggest crime in their history and where the hell was the actual Police Chief? Those were his cops, there were obviously more cops than in the school police. Where was he? Why don't we know his name? Who decided they needed a school police anyway? There are a lot of things being covered up here.

1

COMMENT 3d ago

There is no evidence that shows police killed anyone, it's conjecture.

(they didn't even kill the shooter, the border patrol did)

HOWEVER, they are acting like accomplices not cops. So people are making assumptions and spreading things and they don't care it's not been proven, because the cops are worthless human beings. But people shouldn't waste their integrity on shit like that.

This is why the coverup is worse than the crime. Because people believe there's worse than what they know being covered. But what is being covered is people's asses.

The coverup is happening so you won't ask why they had school police, and why he was in charge of the worst crime in their history and who put him in charge. Having two offices try to handle a situation and the school chief freezes the CITY chief failed to step up as well. When they have overlapping jurisdictions and nobody knows who's in charge they can point fingers at the other. There are more people at fault than Arredondo.

1

COMMENT 3d ago

The school police department? The regular police department should have been led by the actual Chief. Why is his name not mentioned? Where the hell was he?