yuna628

In my observation a person that says "we do not consent'' makes a bad cop even badder. Clearly these cops were in the wrong. My husband got pulled over once for being stopped at a stop sign. Not kidding. The cop said he'd nudged just ever so slightly past the stopping area, which was puzzlingly untrue. There were three other people in the car, including another experienced driver. We all knew my husband had stopped properly. My sister got so angry at that cop and tried arguing with him and I advised her that the cop in question seemed very pissy and having a bad day and that I did not want her to escalate the matter. He took a long look at our car, and questioned where we were going and what we were doing, why we were dressed up (for a funeral), and why we had a dog in the car (to take to doggy daycare so that we could go to the funeral.. meanwhile dog not happy that a person with somewhat annoyed posture was sticking his head into the window), then he made a comment that he was surprised to find no records of wrongdoing on his license (what the??!!). He let us go and then proceeded to almost run traffic off the road as he sped around a corner. It was an odd experience for my husband, and my sister still gets angry that the cop was in the wrong to this day. My dad got pulled over once for having a license plate that was.... according to the cop "too old and dirty looking"... meanwhile I saw a person the other day riding around with a 'tag' made out of cardboard and kid's elmo stickers. If a cop says you are in the wrong, when you know you aren't, what can you do? I would argue the reasons why these cops pulled the bus over were nonsense if not wrong to begin with, and there was no probable cause to do what they did certainly. But if they had all said "I don't consent" I feel like the matter would have become even worse.

I'm not entirely sure how we expect the government to solve the problem of baby formula. Ingredients to make the formula is undergoing a global supply chain issue and the largest manufacturer decided it would be better to spend money elsewhere instead of fixing broken down critically needed devices that kept the formula contamination free. The company has been very slow to acknowledge or fix the problem, so what can we do besides fine them? Importation of such formula from outside this country is nearly impossible due to safety regulation. Studies show there has also been a bit of a baby boom this year, and mothers are not breastfeeding which increases demand. Meanwhile, you can go to my local town facebook page and find posts of persons that have been hoarding and stealing formula and are trying to make some hot $$$'s.

Pretty much it in a nutshell. And as you can see in an example of the woman in the previous article that had a late term abortion, she still had to go through hard labor anyway. Late term abortions are complex, difficult, and rarely ever for convenience, and studies show that is also usually the case. Because we are not banning something that no one does. We are increasingly banning all types and scenarios of abortion, including ones that should always be available and necessary. We are also lumping in birth control and implying eggs have personhood. We are also getting government involved in the regulation of bodily autonomy, liberty, and private sex lives. I do not know anyone that has had an abortion out of 'convenience'. It is doubtful that anyone here does. That does not mean it does not happen. There will be some people that would argue aborting the fetus of a rape victim is convenient or aborting a fetus that is non-viable is convenient. Laws increasingly are not taking into account a variety of scenarios.

As far as I'm aware a lot of the problem is due to the contamination issue and supply chain shortages. They've had nothing in the store for a couple weeks now. There's also multiple ongoing shortages of OTC drugs now.

I came across this yesterday. It's a long interview with a woman that had an abortion at her third trimester. For background, this was a very wanted baby, her story is a tragic and painful ordeal. She made a choice to spare that fetus a birth of immense suffering and painful death. The woman's suffering and cost she went through was quite severe. https://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-at-1781972395 I hope you will consider this person's lengthy story. While we often say that some states thankfully have exceptions in the case of rape or danger to the mother's life, there are questions around late term abortions where the fetus is not viable, and if carried to term has no structure to support life and will experience cruel suffering in labor. I watched a family member go through this, giving birth in hard long labor to a baby that could not survive, and it suffered all the way through it's first and last moments. The trauma the family has is still immense.

Never said that I forgot any such thing, nor has anything I said implied it. Nor have I stated any such thing about abortion either or implied it. If you don't really care about this issue, then why does it sound like you do? SCOTUS also previously found that protesting outside the homes of abortion clinic providers is perfectly fine as well. As a result, individuals have done so for years. Ways to stop someone? What has already been proposed in many states already. Suing anyone who goes over the state lines to do and suing anyone that 'helps' someone cross a state line to do so. If a child has been raped and pregnant by her father, and her mother takes her out of state for an abortion, will the mother be arrested by the state or sued by the rapist? Rep. Coleman from Missouri thought that the suing method was perfectly acceptable. Because, as she believes if an egg has personhood and is a person of that state unable to 'speak for themselves', then the state has the right to stop a woman from obtaining an abortion, arresting, or suing her for 'harm' to that said egg or fetus. I'm not even about to get into the historical context and fallacies of such thinking. Other ways? If masks and COVID measures in many states could prove - a state can compel an individual to do any number of things, which did include travel. Papers please, indeed. I know you cannot see it at the moment, but there is plenty of Constitutional scholars and historical precedent that see the writing on the wall. I imagine it would become a constant battle. Yes it does happen, somewhere.

What do you think is the point of church based schools, homeschools, and church/law based schools marketed by televangelists? I came out of this stuff, I've been there. Train up your child to be the next great activist warrior to transform America to whatever vision of god you want. Imagine if you will, a state went this prohibitive with all sorts of things.. afterall lots of people couldn't handle masks and covid regulations. With new regulations of guns we often get rhetoric that it will foment a near-rebellion. How about with alcohol again? How about men's bodies become regulated in the same way? Will you protest that sperm are not persons with Constitutional rights that supersede your own? Are you mad about people protesting outside of a judge's house? I suppose it is very rude, but SCOTUS had no problem ruling about the right of extremely obnoxious protesters to heckle people outside of funerals. Have you forgotten the days when doctors and clinics would be poisoned and blown up? The times when women are still heckled and abused outside of clinics? The women that die because the only hospital to provide them medical care is 'anti-abortion'? Do you think that the people that are willing to take these measures against a clinic, or the people that define eggs as persons, or wish to ban all birth control, will only be satisfied within their own state borders? That's certainly not what they are saying. I tend to watch what people say and do - what they have been saying and doing for years. Have I said that I support abortion without exception? Don't think so, and we've had lots of threads about the subject over the years.

I could hope that we'd agree on that. I also think most of the population of the US agree on that, and I think they also agree that governments should stay out of our sex lives - however that doesn't stop pastors, activists, and state legislators from trying this. These people care nothing for what the Constitution says, they care even nothing for state Constitutions, they care nothing about any of it - they only care about the objective. Many states did attempt to restrict travel. Most notably MD-PA-DE-NY. I recall there being checkpoints and needing to have documents just in case of being stopped. Long lines often formed. You realize that there still remains laws on the books that restrict a person from one state from bringing an item into another state that prohibits it. If one state has defined all abortion as murder (even the simple use of birth control) then a state will certainly be determined to stop anyone from doing it. If you've not been around activists engaging in these positions then you won't know that stopping abortion (or things they conflate as abortion) must be done at all costs. There is no room for the Constitution in these positions, because these positions restrict life, liberty, and happiness to begin with. Activists have sent generations of kids to schools to perfect this type of ideology and give them a basis in law to argue these positions. If you note that there is often restrictions placed in areas that concern you successfully, why is this any different? Legislators overrule a governor veto all the time. Those that want this to become law in Louisiana are interested in the long game, not the short one. You find it draconian, so do I, that's the point - they want it to be that way. Politicians are not serious about caring how draconian it is, so long as it gets them the votes. But the people actually writing these things do care.

You'd think so right? But they are not deterred by that. I could show you pages of people arguing that states can use a variety of ways to bar someone from leaving. It might seem laughable to some, but they are very serious about it, and will continue to try.

Right, like I said Louisiana legislation will define personhood and constitutional rights to any fertilized egg that is not yet even implanted. And if eggs are now people with rights, sperm will be too. Wait until men realize what sort of regulation these people would like for them!

I think many things are possible, but these individuals are determined to see things through.

Well the articles are out there, in news focused websites and religious based sites that describe the idea as not only completely acceptable but they believe it is able to be achieved. It's only "weird" until someone does it. And there are plenty of potential laws on the table that do just that.

I want you to think about what you've said carefully. Put the following into context: If a state bans all abortions for any reason at all, and let's say a person wants to travel to a state that provides an abortion - what happens if also in the law, that state prevents a resident from leaving to obtain an abortion? And that is just in a simple case. This is not even account for situations where needing an abortion is an emergency or requiring a D&C. Many activists and pastors have said that stopping an abortion in their states is not enough, and they will not be satisfied with that and want to go beyond their borders.

It got to the point after going through biopsies, surgery, ER trips due to severe side effects, and numerous birth control methods, not only were they not working but I ended up having constant blood loss and anemia. At this point they offered an IUD as my last hope or a hysterectomy. Thankfully I found an endocrinologist that realized I needed a different solution. Doctors really are very helpful, but we aren't cookie cutter ladies, nor are certain conditions all the same, sometimes the pill isn't the solution, or a different one is needed. But what hope will women that need the pill or an IUD as a solution to their medical issues have in states that now seek to ban them as "murder"?

Well call me more conservative in this area, but I don't believe that they should be on every street corner. Many will advocate birth control being put over the counter, which may be a good idea. The problem is, as a woman that went through many different types of birth control in an attempt to treat a medical condition, it ended up not being the answer, in fact it made a host of other conditions crop up. Yes the bureaucratic stupidity of how women have to obtain birth control is ridiculous (I loathed it with every fiber of my being), but a doctor counseling what birth control might be appropriate for a woman (we all aren't the same), and utilizing tests to make sure nothing is going wrong is very helpful. With OTC a woman won't get that. But the less government is involved in our sex and personal lives the better. I don't think a lot of people, no matter their age understand women's bodies. There's a thread on twitter right now of some of the ridiculous things guys have come up with - it's really due to a lack of fundamental education in this area. Yeah, I wasn't taking birth control to prevent pregnancy, and that's what people don't understand. They also don't realize how hardcore some of these people want to take things. Unfortunately those people have got platforms and pull. It's worrisome. It's not the government's business when my period is, if i'm pregnant, what birth control I take, and if I choose to terminate a pregnancy for any reason - and that includes needing a D&C. Louisiana would criminalize abortion as homicide from the point of fertilization. The language in the bill would criminalize birth control usage and IVF because it further defines 'personhood' and constitutional rights to the eggs even before implantation themselves. IVF would be murder. Birth control would be murder. If that is the case, then women murder potential persons every month, naturally. Would they define a man's sperm as having personhood? Could provide some issues for them in the future. The people working on this bill are not those that have understanding of science or the law. These are pastors and activists. They do not care if the person is abused, raped, or having a medical emergency. The bill would try to override the federal government, just in case SCOTUS doesn't overturn any provisions or congress changes anything. It would also impeach judges that would rule in a woman's favor. BTW, this would go strangely further than any definition of what constitutes 'personhood' Biblically or historically. There has been concerns that women that use period trackers would have that data sold and used for government intrusion in their lives. It has been done before. Are we going to prevent women from leaving a state? Are we going to prevent obtaining birth control via mail? Are we going to prevent a woman from having to cross state lines to simply get their birth control RX? Could a woman be arrested for having an abortion or taking birth control in another state if she then vacations in a state that outlaws them? How far are we going? Yep. I had a pharmacist that deliberately tried to prevent giving out birth control. And yes, Plan B will not work properly for women that weigh over a certain amount, but that doesn't matter, because they would like to outlaw that too. Remember if our eggs and sperm are persons with constitutional rights, then activists will view anything that prevents things from happening are a no go. The activists and pastors pushing these types of legislation that simply have not got a clue and do not care. They are the persons that used to be out there wanting people to blow up clinics. What they want for your bodies, is their choice. It is going beyond late term abortions. That is not the goal at all. Those in activist circles that are hard core and are coming up with the language in some of these bills and holding rallies certainly do feel this way about IVF.

Yes there are. Some are using language that would prohibit birth control, would raise some very complicated questions for women that require IVF, D&C, and emergency removal of ectopic pregnancies. Some don't even want to consider rape or the life of the mother being in danger in any way. I know there are even further hard core voices that want to restrict hysterectomies! My mom doesn't support abortion, but even she thinks some of these measures are nuts.

Oddly enough my husband is actually seeing a downturn in enrollment this year compared to previous. This is also applying to a lack of new hires to teach these kids trades as well.