So when all of these Justices were at their hearings and said that R vs W was sanctimony and not to be messed with we were all lied to?
What else do they have cooking in the works?
Same sex marriage
Inter racial marriage Griswold V Connecticut
You name it.
"The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." is what Alito wrote.
This logic could just as easily be applied to the civil rights and / or woman’s suffrage movement and any other progressive movement of the last 100 years.
I really, really hope that the other things mentioned start happening but I very well can see the pendulum swinging back to conservatism. You do have half a country that doesn't agree w each other...
Swinging back to conservatism? The country is far more conservative today than it was 50 years ago
So when all of these Justices were at their hearings and said that R vs W was sanctimony and not to be messed with we were all lied to?
What else do they have cooking in the works?
Same sex marriage
Inter racial marriage Griswold V Connecticut
You name it.
"The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." is what Alito wrote.
This logic could just as easily be applied to the civil rights and / or woman’s suffrage movement and any other progressive movement of the last 100 years.
I really, really hope that the other things mentioned start happening but I very well can see the pendulum swinging back to conservatism. You do have half a country that doesn't agree w each other...
Swinging back to conservatism? The country is far more conservative today than it was 50 years ago
Politics are more conservative the people aren’t. That’s fundamentally the problem as most people aren’t that far to the right but the governing is that far right. It’s a smaller hardcore group calling the shots for everyone. Governing specifically to the base and no one else which is probably 20-30 percent of your party and the rest of the party just sort of go along out of loyalty. Then you get laws passed that basically only are really strongly supported by 1/4 of the population.
7 of the last 8 presidential elections more people have voted for the democrats than the republicans, you wouldn’t notice though just based on policies
So when all of these Justices were at their hearings and said that R vs W was sanctimony and not to be messed with we were all lied to?
What else do they have cooking in the works?
Same sex marriage
Inter racial marriage Griswold V Connecticut
You name it.
"The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." is what Alito wrote.
This logic could just as easily be applied to the civil rights and / or woman’s suffrage movement and any other progressive movement of the last 100 years.
I really, really hope that the other things mentioned start happening but I very well can see the pendulum swinging back to conservatism. You do have half a country that doesn't agree w each other...
Swinging back to conservatism? The country is far more conservative today than it was 50 years ago
Politics are more conservative the people aren’t. That’s fundamentally the problem as most people aren’t that far to the right but the governing is that far right. It’s a smaller hardcore group calling the shots for everyone.
7 of the last 8 presidential elections more people have voted for the democrats than the republicans, you wouldn’t notice though just based on policies
Those democratic presidents would have been moderate Republicans 50 years ago. The conception on what the role of government should be is not the same as it used to be.
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
That law is in committee now in Missouri. I think it’s like “reasonable suspicion” a child was conceived in Missouri then they look into it. As to criminal or civil (like the Texas law) no idea. Point being they are trying to figure out how to extend their reach by any means necessary
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
That law is in committee now in Missouri. I think it’s like “reasonable suspicion” a child was conceived in Missouri then they look into it. As to criminal or civil (like the Texas law) no idea. Point being they are trying to figure out how to extend their reach by any means necessary
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
I can see how the Texas law is still there. It still lets you get an abortion within a time frame. What you stated has a state guessing? Proving when and where you got pregnant?
Fuck no that ain't going to hold up. No damn way. ACLU are licking their lips on that one right now.
It is indeed scary that the tentacles are reaching out that far, holy cow...
When EV was at Pilgrimage Festival in TN he got down on one knee when he came out in support of Kaepernick when it first started. The response in the audience was a bit chilly and as we clapped our support we didn’t get too many others joining in. I’m not sure what they’ll do but either way they’ll be asses to some and not others regardless. Abortion is a no win situation no matter how you look at it. If I’m for it my mind says will I feel guilt forever if I ever have to go thru it or is it a split second decision that we don’t dare think about what may follow. This is what I mean about it’s a right to decide issue and that right belongs to woman only so why take the ONLY thing that belongs only to us away.
However, I do believe that if a man wants the baby that his feelings should be taken into consideration for adoption purposes and a woman should not be thought less of if she gives full custody and all her future involvement over to the father. Old enough to have sex then you’re old enough to have these conversations.
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
That law is in committee now in Missouri. I think it’s like “reasonable suspicion” a child was conceived in Missouri then they look into it. As to criminal or civil (like the Texas law) no idea. Point being they are trying to figure out how to extend their reach by any means necessary
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
I can see how the Texas law is still there. It still lets you get an abortion within a time frame. What you stated has a state guessing? Proving when and where you got pregnant?
Fuck no that ain't going to hold up. No damn way. ACLU are licking their lips on that one right now.
It is indeed scary that the tentacles are reaching out that far, holy cow...
the Texas law is problematic because of the civil enforcement mechanism reguardless of the target of the law.
It allows a state to indirectly ban something without actually banning it. You could do the same law with guns for example. It’s unconstitutional to ban guns, but a law with a civil enforcement mechanism gives the state cover. The state didn’t ban guns, they just empowered citizens to sue anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of a gun into bankruptcy. That’s the problem with the Texas law. It’s designed to bypass federal courts and state government and make it a free for all to enforce
at the time a ban on abortions was unconstitutional so the politicians in Texas decided to pass a law that didn’t ban abortions directly , what it did was let private citizens sue clinics, doctors, and the person who drove you to get the procedure in an attempt to ban them by litigation. The time frame is irrelevant 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, that’s not the issue as it could have just been 0 weeks as well. The civil enforcement is the scariest part since the person who gets sued can’t claim the government infringed on their constitutional rights, the state didn’t. Their hands are clean
At it’s core it’s a mechanism designed to deprive a constitutional right from someone without the state being directly involved which then avoids the oversight of a federal court who decides on constitutional issues. It could be used for a lot more than just abortion. The constitutional rights you have protect you from the government not private individuals, so having private individuals doing the work for you bypasses all that
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
That law is in committee now in Missouri. I think it’s like “reasonable suspicion” a child was conceived in Missouri then they look into it. As to criminal or civil (like the Texas law) no idea. Point being they are trying to figure out how to extend their reach by any means necessary
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
I can see how the Texas law is still there. It still lets you get an abortion within a time frame. What you stated has a state guessing? Proving when and where you got pregnant?
Fuck no that ain't going to hold up. No damn way. ACLU are licking their lips on that one right now.
It is indeed scary that the tentacles are reaching out that far, holy cow...
the Texas law is problematic because of the civil enforcement mechanism reguardless of the target of the law.
It allows a state to indirectly ban something without actually banning it. You could do the same law with guns for example. It’s unconstitutional to ban guns, but a law with a civil enforcement mechanism gives the state cover. The state didn’t ban guns, they just empowered citizens to sue anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of a gun into bankruptcy. That’s the problem with the Texas law. It’s designed to bypass federal courts and state government and make it a free for all to enforce
at the time a ban on abortions was unconstitutional so the politicians in Texas decided to pass a law that didn’t ban abortions directly , what it did was let private citizens sue clinics, doctors, and the person who drove you to get the procedure in an attempt to ban them by litigation. The time frame is irrelevant 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, that’s not the issue as it could have just been 0 weeks as well. The civil enforcement is the scariest part since the person who gets sued can’t claim the government infringed on their constitutional rights, the state didn’t. Their hands are clean
At it’s core it’s a mechanism designed to deprive a constitutional right from someone without the state being directly involved which then avoids the oversight of a federal court who decides on constitutional issues. It could be used for a lot more than just abortion. The constitutional rights you have protect you from the government not private individuals, so having private individuals doing the work for you bypasses all that
Government or private, you are still protected by the constitution. I don't get how that weasels their way out of it?
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
That law is in committee now in Missouri. I think it’s like “reasonable suspicion” a child was conceived in Missouri then they look into it. As to criminal or civil (like the Texas law) no idea. Point being they are trying to figure out how to extend their reach by any means necessary
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
I can see how the Texas law is still there. It still lets you get an abortion within a time frame. What you stated has a state guessing? Proving when and where you got pregnant?
Fuck no that ain't going to hold up. No damn way. ACLU are licking their lips on that one right now.
It is indeed scary that the tentacles are reaching out that far, holy cow...
the Texas law is problematic because of the civil enforcement mechanism reguardless of the target of the law.
It allows a state to indirectly ban something without actually banning it. You could do the same law with guns for example. It’s unconstitutional to ban guns, but a law with a civil enforcement mechanism gives the state cover. The state didn’t ban guns, they just empowered citizens to sue anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of a gun into bankruptcy. That’s the problem with the Texas law. It’s designed to bypass federal courts and state government and make it a free for all to enforce
at the time a ban on abortions was unconstitutional so the politicians in Texas decided to pass a law that didn’t ban abortions directly , what it did was let private citizens sue clinics, doctors, and the person who drove you to get the procedure in an attempt to ban them by litigation. The time frame is irrelevant 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, that’s not the issue as it could have just been 0 weeks as well. The civil enforcement is the scariest part since the person who gets sued can’t claim the government infringed on their constitutional rights, the state didn’t. Their hands are clean
At it’s core it’s a mechanism designed to deprive a constitutional right from someone without the state being directly involved which then avoids the oversight of a federal court who decides on constitutional issues. It could be used for a lot more than just abortion. The constitutional rights you have protect you from the government not private individuals, so having private individuals doing the work for you bypasses all that
Government or private, you are still protected by the constitution. I don't get how that weasels their way out of it?
No you are not, at least not in the way most people think. Broadly speaking, the constitution protects you from the government not individuals
For example, the government can’t fine you or put you in jail for saying “trump sucks”. First amendment Your employer however can fire you. You have no first amendment protections from your private employer. If you work at a public school however you are state funded and you are protected. See the difference?
Twitter can censor whatever speech they want, it’s not government run. If the government bought it instead of Musk, Twitter couldn’t censor your speech. It’s an important distinction on who can censor and who can’t.
The constitution gives you rights the government can’t infringe on. I can infringe on whatever rights I want to for the most part unless I’m violating some other federal law or other protected class. I can search anyone who enters my house for whatever reason I want. That person isn’t protected by the 4th amendment covering unreasonable searches. I don’t need probable cause or a warrant. I don’t have to allow my wife to vote. The government has to allow her to vote, but I could divorce her for doing it if I was so inclined
The Supreme Court is hearing cases John Doe vs Texas etc. they aren’t really hearing cases extraneous from the government as it’s not really applicable
So when all of these Justices were at their hearings and said that R vs W was sanctimony and not to be messed with we were all lied to?
What else do they have cooking in the works?
Same sex marriage
Inter racial marriage Griswold V Connecticut
You name it.
"The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." is what Alito wrote.
This logic could just as easily be applied to the civil rights and / or woman’s suffrage movement and any other progressive movement of the last 100 years.
I really, really hope that the other things mentioned start happening but I very well can see the pendulum swinging back to conservatism. You do have half a country that doesn't agree w each other...
As far as half the country not agreeing with each other, I'm pretty sure that's not the case w/ the right to choose.
As I understand it, 70% of Americans support the right to choose, and only 28% oppose. That's a pretty glaring gap.
"not" should be in there...
No way there are that many people for it and this becomes a thing.
I see half the country as conservative and they usually, not always lean that way w abortion.
I just took a quick glance at Pew Research center (which I'm under the impression is a good source), it might be closer to 60%... I was going off memory, apologies for not researching first... if accurate though, 60-40 is still a pretty glaring gap.
According to this, 70% of Americans do not want to see RvW overturned.
I knew I didn't come up with that # out of thin air.
Still 60/40 split is closer than you'd think. That is a swing away from going to the other direction. That 70% not wanting to change is promising though.
Bottom line, SCOTUS is acting against the will of the majority.
It is not the job of the SCOTUS to act on behalf of the majority. That would be scary in a lot of situations. The majority are not legal scholars either. The majority comes into play by electing leaders to enact laws.
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
That law is in committee now in Missouri. I think it’s like “reasonable suspicion” a child was conceived in Missouri then they look into it. As to criminal or civil (like the Texas law) no idea. Point being they are trying to figure out how to extend their reach by any means necessary
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
I can see how the Texas law is still there. It still lets you get an abortion within a time frame. What you stated has a state guessing? Proving when and where you got pregnant?
Fuck no that ain't going to hold up. No damn way. ACLU are licking their lips on that one right now.
It is indeed scary that the tentacles are reaching out that far, holy cow...
the Texas law is problematic because of the civil enforcement mechanism reguardless of the target of the law.
It allows a state to indirectly ban something without actually banning it. You could do the same law with guns for example. It’s unconstitutional to ban guns, but a law with a civil enforcement mechanism gives the state cover. The state didn’t ban guns, they just empowered citizens to sue anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of a gun into bankruptcy. That’s the problem with the Texas law. It’s designed to bypass federal courts and state government and make it a free for all to enforce
at the time a ban on abortions was unconstitutional so the politicians in Texas decided to pass a law that didn’t ban abortions directly , what it did was let private citizens sue clinics, doctors, and the person who drove you to get the procedure in an attempt to ban them by litigation. The time frame is irrelevant 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, that’s not the issue as it could have just been 0 weeks as well. The civil enforcement is the scariest part since the person who gets sued can’t claim the government infringed on their constitutional rights, the state didn’t. Their hands are clean
At it’s core it’s a mechanism designed to deprive a constitutional right from someone without the state being directly involved which then avoids the oversight of a federal court who decides on constitutional issues. It could be used for a lot more than just abortion. The constitutional rights you have protect you from the government not private individuals, so having private individuals doing the work for you bypasses all that
Government or private, you are still protected by the constitution. I don't get how that weasels their way out of it?
No you are not, at least not in the way most people think. Broadly speaking, the constitution protects you from the government not individuals
For example, the government can’t fine you or put you in jail for saying “trump sucks”. First amendment Your employer however can fire you. You have no first amendment protections from your private employer. If you work at a public school however you are state funded and you are protected. See the difference?
Twitter can censor whatever speech they want, it’s not government run. If the government bought it instead of Musk, Twitter couldn’t censor your speech. It’s an important distinction on who can censor and who can’t.
The constitution gives you rights the government can’t infringe on. I can infringe on whatever rights I want to for the most part unless I’m violating some other federal law or other protected class. I can search anyone who enters my house for whatever reason I want. That person isn’t protected by the 4th amendment covering unreasonable searches. I don’t need probable cause or a warrant. I don’t have to allow my wife to vote. The government has to allow her to vote, but I could divorce her for doing it if I was so inclined
The Supreme Court is hearing cases John Doe vs Texas etc. they aren’t really hearing cases extraneous from the government as it’s not really applicable
I don’t get that analogy. Your first amendment rights are actually very limited as a public school teacher./employee. Far more limited than most private employers.
I can’t think of any public job where you can say whatever you want and not be fired. I can say sexist things in my own time and be protect by 1A, any public eMployer will still fire you though.
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
That law is in committee now in Missouri. I think it’s like “reasonable suspicion” a child was conceived in Missouri then they look into it. As to criminal or civil (like the Texas law) no idea. Point being they are trying to figure out how to extend their reach by any means necessary
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
I can see how the Texas law is still there. It still lets you get an abortion within a time frame. What you stated has a state guessing? Proving when and where you got pregnant?
Fuck no that ain't going to hold up. No damn way. ACLU are licking their lips on that one right now.
It is indeed scary that the tentacles are reaching out that far, holy cow...
the Texas law is problematic because of the civil enforcement mechanism reguardless of the target of the law.
It allows a state to indirectly ban something without actually banning it. You could do the same law with guns for example. It’s unconstitutional to ban guns, but a law with a civil enforcement mechanism gives the state cover. The state didn’t ban guns, they just empowered citizens to sue anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of a gun into bankruptcy. That’s the problem with the Texas law. It’s designed to bypass federal courts and state government and make it a free for all to enforce
at the time a ban on abortions was unconstitutional so the politicians in Texas decided to pass a law that didn’t ban abortions directly , what it did was let private citizens sue clinics, doctors, and the person who drove you to get the procedure in an attempt to ban them by litigation. The time frame is irrelevant 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, that’s not the issue as it could have just been 0 weeks as well. The civil enforcement is the scariest part since the person who gets sued can’t claim the government infringed on their constitutional rights, the state didn’t. Their hands are clean
At it’s core it’s a mechanism designed to deprive a constitutional right from someone without the state being directly involved which then avoids the oversight of a federal court who decides on constitutional issues. It could be used for a lot more than just abortion. The constitutional rights you have protect you from the government not private individuals, so having private individuals doing the work for you bypasses all that
Government or private, you are still protected by the constitution. I don't get how that weasels their way out of it?
No you are not, at least not in the way most people think. Broadly speaking, the constitution protects you from the government not individuals
For example, the government can’t fine you or put you in jail for saying “trump sucks”. First amendment Your employer however can fire you. You have no first amendment protections from your private employer. If you work at a public school however you are state funded and you are protected. See the difference?
Twitter can censor whatever speech they want, it’s not government run. If the government bought it instead of Musk, Twitter couldn’t censor your speech. It’s an important distinction on who can censor and who can’t.
The constitution gives you rights the government can’t infringe on. I can infringe on whatever rights I want to for the most part unless I’m violating some other federal law or other protected class. I can search anyone who enters my house for whatever reason I want. That person isn’t protected by the 4th amendment covering unreasonable searches. I don’t need probable cause or a warrant. I don’t have to allow my wife to vote. The government has to allow her to vote, but I could divorce her for doing it if I was so inclined
The Supreme Court is hearing cases John Doe vs Texas etc. they aren’t really hearing cases extraneous from the government as it’s not really applicable
I don’t get that analogy. Your first amendment rights are actually very limited as a public school teacher./employee. Far more limited than most private employers.
Political speech is protected as a state employee. There are nuances like you can’t say what you want when acting in an official capacity etc.
A better example is I can buy a McDonald’s and say I refuse to hire Republicans (political affiliation isn’t a protected class, but stuff like gender or race are). That’s basically ok on the federal level
a public school district can’t say we refuse to hire Republicans because their political affiliation is related to their freedom of speech and tax payers are funding a district that are discriminating against half the employees
if you work for any entity that is taxpayer funded your employer has less leeway to censor you than a private company by a lot. At the end of the day as a public employee you actually may have a case if your employer censors you, as a private employee you have no case to be made.
A private Baptist school can fire a teacher for putting a gay pride flag in their yard. A public school can’t fire a teacher for putting a trump sign in their yard .
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
That law is in committee now in Missouri. I think it’s like “reasonable suspicion” a child was conceived in Missouri then they look into it. As to criminal or civil (like the Texas law) no idea. Point being they are trying to figure out how to extend their reach by any means necessary
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
I can see how the Texas law is still there. It still lets you get an abortion within a time frame. What you stated has a state guessing? Proving when and where you got pregnant?
Fuck no that ain't going to hold up. No damn way. ACLU are licking their lips on that one right now.
It is indeed scary that the tentacles are reaching out that far, holy cow...
the Texas law is problematic because of the civil enforcement mechanism reguardless of the target of the law.
It allows a state to indirectly ban something without actually banning it. You could do the same law with guns for example. It’s unconstitutional to ban guns, but a law with a civil enforcement mechanism gives the state cover. The state didn’t ban guns, they just empowered citizens to sue anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of a gun into bankruptcy. That’s the problem with the Texas law. It’s designed to bypass federal courts and state government and make it a free for all to enforce
at the time a ban on abortions was unconstitutional so the politicians in Texas decided to pass a law that didn’t ban abortions directly , what it did was let private citizens sue clinics, doctors, and the person who drove you to get the procedure in an attempt to ban them by litigation. The time frame is irrelevant 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, that’s not the issue as it could have just been 0 weeks as well. The civil enforcement is the scariest part since the person who gets sued can’t claim the government infringed on their constitutional rights, the state didn’t. Their hands are clean
At it’s core it’s a mechanism designed to deprive a constitutional right from someone without the state being directly involved which then avoids the oversight of a federal court who decides on constitutional issues. It could be used for a lot more than just abortion. The constitutional rights you have protect you from the government not private individuals, so having private individuals doing the work for you bypasses all that
Government or private, you are still protected by the constitution. I don't get how that weasels their way out of it?
No you are not, at least not in the way most people think. Broadly speaking, the constitution protects you from the government not individuals
For example, the government can’t fine you or put you in jail for saying “trump sucks”. First amendment Your employer however can fire you. You have no first amendment protections from your private employer. If you work at a public school however you are state funded and you are protected. See the difference?
Twitter can censor whatever speech they want, it’s not government run. If the government bought it instead of Musk, Twitter couldn’t censor your speech. It’s an important distinction on who can censor and who can’t.
The constitution gives you rights the government can’t infringe on. I can infringe on whatever rights I want to for the most part unless I’m violating some other federal law or other protected class. I can search anyone who enters my house for whatever reason I want. That person isn’t protected by the 4th amendment covering unreasonable searches. I don’t need probable cause or a warrant. I don’t have to allow my wife to vote. The government has to allow her to vote, but I could divorce her for doing it if I was so inclined
The Supreme Court is hearing cases John Doe vs Texas etc. they aren’t really hearing cases extraneous from the government as it’s not really applicable
I don’t get that analogy. Your first amendment rights are actually very limited as a public school teacher./employee. Far more limited than most private employers.
Political speech is protected as a state employee. There are nuances like you can’t say what you want when acting in an official capacity etc.
A better example is I can buy a McDonald’s and say I refuse to hire Republicans (political affiliation isn’t a protected class, but stuff like gender or race are). That’s basically ok
a public school district can’t say we refuse to hire Republicans because their political affiliation is related to their freedom of speech
if you work for any entity that is taxpayer funded your employer has less leeway to censor you than a private company by a lot
Yeah but, and I guess this is going through courts now, your right to get an abortion is protected by the constitution. I don't see how a state ruling can make that not happen. Any cases of this actually happen where a regular citizen sues an abortion patient or doctor, facility etc?
This opens pandoras box. Basically anything can be viewed this way if you write it the exact way the abortion law was done.
A civil suit can be brought about by anything.
The one thing I don't get is a 10,000 "reward" is given to anyone that gets someone proven guilty. Where does that money come from? Is that civil also?
I'm going to have to read more about this now. Logically it doesn't make sense to me. There has to be morality behind the rulings...
Yes I am late on some of this and I did follow it in the beginning but lost interest because it sounded so preposterous.
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
That law is in committee now in Missouri. I think it’s like “reasonable suspicion” a child was conceived in Missouri then they look into it. As to criminal or civil (like the Texas law) no idea. Point being they are trying to figure out how to extend their reach by any means necessary
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
I can see how the Texas law is still there. It still lets you get an abortion within a time frame. What you stated has a state guessing? Proving when and where you got pregnant?
Fuck no that ain't going to hold up. No damn way. ACLU are licking their lips on that one right now.
It is indeed scary that the tentacles are reaching out that far, holy cow...
the Texas law is problematic because of the civil enforcement mechanism reguardless of the target of the law.
It allows a state to indirectly ban something without actually banning it. You could do the same law with guns for example. It’s unconstitutional to ban guns, but a law with a civil enforcement mechanism gives the state cover. The state didn’t ban guns, they just empowered citizens to sue anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of a gun into bankruptcy. That’s the problem with the Texas law. It’s designed to bypass federal courts and state government and make it a free for all to enforce
at the time a ban on abortions was unconstitutional so the politicians in Texas decided to pass a law that didn’t ban abortions directly , what it did was let private citizens sue clinics, doctors, and the person who drove you to get the procedure in an attempt to ban them by litigation. The time frame is irrelevant 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, that’s not the issue as it could have just been 0 weeks as well. The civil enforcement is the scariest part since the person who gets sued can’t claim the government infringed on their constitutional rights, the state didn’t. Their hands are clean
At it’s core it’s a mechanism designed to deprive a constitutional right from someone without the state being directly involved which then avoids the oversight of a federal court who decides on constitutional issues. It could be used for a lot more than just abortion. The constitutional rights you have protect you from the government not private individuals, so having private individuals doing the work for you bypasses all that
Government or private, you are still protected by the constitution. I don't get how that weasels their way out of it?
No you are not, at least not in the way most people think. Broadly speaking, the constitution protects you from the government not individuals
For example, the government can’t fine you or put you in jail for saying “trump sucks”. First amendment Your employer however can fire you. You have no first amendment protections from your private employer. If you work at a public school however you are state funded and you are protected. See the difference?
Twitter can censor whatever speech they want, it’s not government run. If the government bought it instead of Musk, Twitter couldn’t censor your speech. It’s an important distinction on who can censor and who can’t.
The constitution gives you rights the government can’t infringe on. I can infringe on whatever rights I want to for the most part unless I’m violating some other federal law or other protected class. I can search anyone who enters my house for whatever reason I want. That person isn’t protected by the 4th amendment covering unreasonable searches. I don’t need probable cause or a warrant. I don’t have to allow my wife to vote. The government has to allow her to vote, but I could divorce her for doing it if I was so inclined
The Supreme Court is hearing cases John Doe vs Texas etc. they aren’t really hearing cases extraneous from the government as it’s not really applicable
I don’t get that analogy. Your first amendment rights are actually very limited as a public school teacher./employee. Far more limited than most private employers.
Political speech is protected as a state employee. There are nuances like you can’t say what you want when acting in an official capacity etc.
A better example is I can buy a McDonald’s and say I refuse to hire Republicans (political affiliation isn’t a protected class, but stuff like gender or race are). That’s basically ok
a public school district can’t say we refuse to hire Republicans because their political affiliation is related to their freedom of speech
if you work for any entity that is taxpayer funded your employer has less leeway to censor you than a private company by a lot
Yeah but, and I guess this is going through courts now, your right to get an abortion is protected by the constitution. I don't see how a state ruling can make that not happen. Any cases of this actually happen where a regular citizen sues an abortion patient or doctor, facility etc?
This opens pandoras box. Basically anything can be viewed this way if you write it the exact way the abortion law was done.
A civil suit can be brought about by anything.
The one thing I don't get is a 10,000 "reward" is given to anyone that gets someone proven guilty. Where does that money come from? Is that civil also?
I'm going to have to read more about this now. Logically it doesn't make sense to me. There has to be morality behind the rulings...
Yes I am late on some of this and I did follow it in the beginning but lost interest because it sounded so preposterous.
Long story short. The Texas law at the Supreme Court isn’t necessarily being decided on the constitutionality of the abortion provisions it’s being tested on the civil enforcement mechanisms constitutionality as the abortion providers want to fight the state on this, not every individual who sues them. The state wrote the law in such a way that it wants to avoid being a party to the case
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
That law is in committee now in Missouri. I think it’s like “reasonable suspicion” a child was conceived in Missouri then they look into it. As to criminal or civil (like the Texas law) no idea. Point being they are trying to figure out how to extend their reach by any means necessary
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
I can see how the Texas law is still there. It still lets you get an abortion within a time frame. What you stated has a state guessing? Proving when and where you got pregnant?
Fuck no that ain't going to hold up. No damn way. ACLU are licking their lips on that one right now.
It is indeed scary that the tentacles are reaching out that far, holy cow...
the Texas law is problematic because of the civil enforcement mechanism reguardless of the target of the law.
It allows a state to indirectly ban something without actually banning it. You could do the same law with guns for example. It’s unconstitutional to ban guns, but a law with a civil enforcement mechanism gives the state cover. The state didn’t ban guns, they just empowered citizens to sue anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of a gun into bankruptcy. That’s the problem with the Texas law. It’s designed to bypass federal courts and state government and make it a free for all to enforce
at the time a ban on abortions was unconstitutional so the politicians in Texas decided to pass a law that didn’t ban abortions directly , what it did was let private citizens sue clinics, doctors, and the person who drove you to get the procedure in an attempt to ban them by litigation. The time frame is irrelevant 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, that’s not the issue as it could have just been 0 weeks as well. The civil enforcement is the scariest part since the person who gets sued can’t claim the government infringed on their constitutional rights, the state didn’t. Their hands are clean
At it’s core it’s a mechanism designed to deprive a constitutional right from someone without the state being directly involved which then avoids the oversight of a federal court who decides on constitutional issues. It could be used for a lot more than just abortion. The constitutional rights you have protect you from the government not private individuals, so having private individuals doing the work for you bypasses all that
Government or private, you are still protected by the constitution. I don't get how that weasels their way out of it?
No you are not, at least not in the way most people think. Broadly speaking, the constitution protects you from the government not individuals
For example, the government can’t fine you or put you in jail for saying “trump sucks”. First amendment Your employer however can fire you. You have no first amendment protections from your private employer. If you work at a public school however you are state funded and you are protected. See the difference?
Twitter can censor whatever speech they want, it’s not government run. If the government bought it instead of Musk, Twitter couldn’t censor your speech. It’s an important distinction on who can censor and who can’t.
The constitution gives you rights the government can’t infringe on. I can infringe on whatever rights I want to for the most part unless I’m violating some other federal law or other protected class. I can search anyone who enters my house for whatever reason I want. That person isn’t protected by the 4th amendment covering unreasonable searches. I don’t need probable cause or a warrant. I don’t have to allow my wife to vote. The government has to allow her to vote, but I could divorce her for doing it if I was so inclined
The Supreme Court is hearing cases John Doe vs Texas etc. they aren’t really hearing cases extraneous from the government as it’s not really applicable
I don’t get that analogy. Your first amendment rights are actually very limited as a public school teacher./employee. Far more limited than most private employers.
Political speech is protected as a state employee. There are nuances like you can’t say what you want when acting in an official capacity etc.
A better example is I can buy a McDonald’s and say I refuse to hire Republicans (political affiliation isn’t a protected class, but stuff like gender or race are). That’s basically ok
a public school district can’t say we refuse to hire Republicans because their political affiliation is related to their freedom of speech
if you work for any entity that is taxpayer funded your employer has less leeway to censor you than a private company by a lot
Yeah but, and I guess this is going through courts now, your right to get an abortion is protected by the constitution. I don't see how a state ruling can make that not happen. Any cases of this actually happen where a regular citizen sues an abortion patient or doctor, facility etc?
This opens pandoras box. Basically anything can be viewed this way if you write it the exact way the abortion law was done.
A civil suit can be brought about by anything.
The one thing I don't get is a 10,000 "reward" is given to anyone that gets someone proven guilty. Where does that money come from? Is that civil also?
I'm going to have to read more about this now. Logically it doesn't make sense to me. There has to be morality behind the rulings...
Yes I am late on some of this and I did follow it in the beginning but lost interest because it sounded so preposterous.
The defendant has to pay the award, court costs and attorney fees. Worse, I don't think there are reciprocal fees if the plaintiffs lose.
if I was betting, PJ shows in KY, MO, TN, and OK won’t happen. Pro choice is and has been central to PJ since the beginning. They would be smart to avoid those states
MO in particular as they are moving to criminalise their residents leaving the state to get an abortion. So the entire premise of leaving the decision up to individual states will last about 2 minutes, then the red states will try to regulate the procedure across state lines by either a Texas style law to sue out of state entities in their state courts which technically they shouldn’t be allowed to due but that won’t stop them or to punish their residents who leave the states jurisdiction to get an abortion in a state where it’s legal
I really hope PJ doesn't punish the fan base for things they can't control and most likely also don't agree with. They took a stand for a good reason in 2016, but it wasn't handled well in regards to the fans. This time, do it right and make these shows opportunities to use their stature and Eddies voice to speak out against what's happening.
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
Reducing tourism and tax revenue for the states is how I see it, not punishing the fans.
It’s inconvenient for fans sure, but it’s also inconvenient for all the women who now have to fly to California. And the state is able to do that directly or indirectly off of revenue PJ creates for them
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
That law is in committee now in Missouri. I think it’s like “reasonable suspicion” a child was conceived in Missouri then they look into it. As to criminal or civil (like the Texas law) no idea. Point being they are trying to figure out how to extend their reach by any means necessary
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
I can see how the Texas law is still there. It still lets you get an abortion within a time frame. What you stated has a state guessing? Proving when and where you got pregnant?
Fuck no that ain't going to hold up. No damn way. ACLU are licking their lips on that one right now.
It is indeed scary that the tentacles are reaching out that far, holy cow...
the Texas law is problematic because of the civil enforcement mechanism reguardless of the target of the law.
It allows a state to indirectly ban something without actually banning it. You could do the same law with guns for example. It’s unconstitutional to ban guns, but a law with a civil enforcement mechanism gives the state cover. The state didn’t ban guns, they just empowered citizens to sue anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of a gun into bankruptcy. That’s the problem with the Texas law. It’s designed to bypass federal courts and state government and make it a free for all to enforce
at the time a ban on abortions was unconstitutional so the politicians in Texas decided to pass a law that didn’t ban abortions directly , what it did was let private citizens sue clinics, doctors, and the person who drove you to get the procedure in an attempt to ban them by litigation. The time frame is irrelevant 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, that’s not the issue as it could have just been 0 weeks as well. The civil enforcement is the scariest part since the person who gets sued can’t claim the government infringed on their constitutional rights, the state didn’t. Their hands are clean
At it’s core it’s a mechanism designed to deprive a constitutional right from someone without the state being directly involved which then avoids the oversight of a federal court who decides on constitutional issues. It could be used for a lot more than just abortion. The constitutional rights you have protect you from the government not private individuals, so having private individuals doing the work for you bypasses all that
Government or private, you are still protected by the constitution. I don't get how that weasels their way out of it?
No you are not, at least not in the way most people think. Broadly speaking, the constitution protects you from the government not individuals
For example, the government can’t fine you or put you in jail for saying “trump sucks”. First amendment Your employer however can fire you. You have no first amendment protections from your private employer. If you work at a public school however you are state funded and you are protected. See the difference?
Twitter can censor whatever speech they want, it’s not government run. If the government bought it instead of Musk, Twitter couldn’t censor your speech. It’s an important distinction on who can censor and who can’t.
The constitution gives you rights the government can’t infringe on. I can infringe on whatever rights I want to for the most part unless I’m violating some other federal law or other protected class. I can search anyone who enters my house for whatever reason I want. That person isn’t protected by the 4th amendment covering unreasonable searches. I don’t need probable cause or a warrant. I don’t have to allow my wife to vote. The government has to allow her to vote, but I could divorce her for doing it if I was so inclined
The Supreme Court is hearing cases John Doe vs Texas etc. they aren’t really hearing cases extraneous from the government as it’s not really applicable
I don’t get that analogy. Your first amendment rights are actually very limited as a public school teacher./employee. Far more limited than most private employers.
Political speech is protected as a state employee. There are nuances like you can’t say what you want when acting in an official capacity etc.
A better example is I can buy a McDonald’s and say I refuse to hire Republicans (political affiliation isn’t a protected class, but stuff like gender or race are). That’s basically ok on the federal level
a public school district can’t say we refuse to hire Republicans because their political affiliation is related to their freedom of speech and tax payers are funding a district that are discriminating against half the employees
if you work for any entity that is taxpayer funded your employer has less leeway to censor you than a private company by a lot. At the end of the day as a public employee you actually may have a case if your employer censors you, as a private employee you have no case to be made.
A private Baptist school can fire a teacher for putting a gay pride flag in their yard. A public school can’t fire a teacher for putting a trump sign in their yard .
It sounded like you meant a teacher can practice their 1A rights on the job and be protected. We’re constantly told not to talk politics or even say who we voted for. Butbyes, they can’t fire a teacher because they are Republican or democrat. I would imagine even if McDonadls did and openly stated that was why, there’d be a successful lawsuit. In your example you say how a public employee can’t be fired for what they say because of 1A. Probably any public employee says racist or sexists things off duty they can still get fired. They can’t get jailed or fined, but 1A doesn’t protect your job.
i want to know where biden was last night. he should have been on tv within 2 hours of the leak reassuring americans that he has a plan. they knew this was coming, and it is a very bad look that a landmark legal precedent is being overturned while the president says nothing. i guess he goes to bed at 7 pm eastern, but this news was worth a damn wake up and throw him out in front of some cameras.
pack the court now. add 6 more justices that are not extremists on either side. the country is more moderate, and the court should reflect the citizenry.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,949
i want to know where biden was last night. he should have been on tv within 2 hours of the leak reassuring americans that he has a plan. they knew this was coming, and it is a very bad look that a landmark legal precedent is being overturned while the president says nothing. i guess he goes to bed at 7 pm eastern, but this news was worth a damn wake up and throw him out in front of some cameras.
pack the court now. add 6 more justices that are not extremists on either side. the country is more moderate, and the court should reflect the citizenry.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
Ask KellyAnne CONway. Or Sarah Hucksterbee Sanders. Or Kayleigh MaCaMeany. The God Squad knows all.
When EV was at Pilgrimage Festival in TN he got down on one knee when he came out in support of Kaepernick when it first started. The response in the audience was a bit chilly and as we clapped our support we didn’t get too many others joining in. I’m not sure what they’ll do but either way they’ll be asses to some and not others regardless. Abortion is a no win situation no matter how you look at it. If I’m for it my mind says will I feel guilt forever if I ever have to go thru it or is it a split second decision that we don’t dare think about what may follow. This is what I mean about it’s a right to decide issue and that right belongs to woman only so why take the ONLY thing that belongs only to us away.
I totally agree, cblock. I do not take abortion lightly, and I would hope other measure would be taken to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but personally, I am not against abortion. But what I think that way doesn't matter because it's not a choice I ever had to make. It's a woman's choice, and it should remain a woman's choice. And if that choice is taken away from women, we will- in this country- have take a giant step backward. I find it very disturbing that the possible repeal of Roe vs. Wade is happening at all.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next. Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.
Yes, you’re right across the board. However this could be a bit of the dog catching the car. These issues are settled as a national, moral consensus, including abortion. The Christian Right has its victory, but as these issues get waged locally now, every single delegate and governor race will be about abortion, gay marriage, all of these privacy issues. I actually do not think this is a winner for them long term. The country is not getting less pro choice, less gay marriage or less pro contraception.
Comments
Eddie scrawling pro choice on his arm during Porch is forever a memory i will have when i hear that song.
plus if MO says a California resident who gets pregnant in MO is subject to MO laws on abortion I bet she really would have rather not gone to that PJ show. That has absolutely been floated in Missouri as a way to reach across state lines and extend their jurisdiction
No way in hell they can tell when that happened. No way. I wouldn't believe this to hold water in the lower courts not much less the larger circuits.
Legality aside, it’ll take a long time to sort out. The Texas law is absurd but that’s still in effect, for example
Fuck no that ain't going to hold up. No damn way. ACLU are licking their lips on that one right now.
It is indeed scary that the tentacles are reaching out that far, holy cow...
It allows a state to indirectly ban something without actually banning it. You could do the same law with guns for example. It’s unconstitutional to ban guns, but a law with a civil enforcement mechanism gives the state cover. The state didn’t ban guns, they just empowered citizens to sue anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of a gun into bankruptcy. That’s the problem with the Texas law. It’s designed to bypass federal courts and state government and make it a free for all to enforce
at the time a ban on abortions was unconstitutional so the politicians in Texas decided to pass a law that didn’t ban abortions directly , what it did was let private citizens sue clinics, doctors, and the person who drove you to get the procedure in an attempt to ban them by litigation. The time frame is irrelevant 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks, that’s not the issue as it could have just been 0 weeks as well. The civil enforcement is the scariest part since the person who gets sued can’t claim the government infringed on their constitutional rights, the state didn’t. Their hands are clean
At it’s core it’s a mechanism designed to deprive a constitutional right from someone without the state being directly involved which then avoids the oversight of a federal court who decides on constitutional issues. It could be used for a lot more than just abortion. The constitutional rights you have protect you from the government not private individuals, so having private individuals doing the work for you bypasses all that
For example, the government can’t fine you or put you in jail for saying “trump sucks”. First amendment
Your employer however can fire you. You have no first amendment protections from your private employer. If you work at a public school however you are state funded and you are protected. See the difference?
Twitter can censor whatever speech they want, it’s not government run. If the government bought it instead of Musk, Twitter couldn’t censor your speech. It’s an important distinction on who can censor and who can’t.
The constitution gives you rights the government can’t infringe on. I can infringe on whatever rights I want to for the most part unless I’m violating some other federal law or other protected class. I can search anyone who enters my house for whatever reason I want. That person isn’t protected by the 4th amendment covering unreasonable searches. I don’t need probable cause or a warrant. I don’t have to allow my wife to vote. The government has to allow her to vote, but I could divorce her for doing it if I was so inclined
I can’t think of any public job where you can say whatever you want and not be fired. I can say sexist things in my own time and be protect by 1A, any public eMployer will still fire you though.
a public school district can’t say we refuse to hire Republicans because their political affiliation is related to their freedom of speech and tax payers are funding a district that are discriminating against half the employees
if you work for any entity that is taxpayer funded your employer has less leeway to censor you than a private company by a lot. At the end of the day as a public employee you actually may have a case if your employer censors you, as a private employee you have no case to be made.
This opens pandoras box. Basically anything can be viewed this way if you write it the exact way the abortion law was done.
A civil suit can be brought about by anything.
The one thing I don't get is a 10,000 "reward" is given to anyone that gets someone proven guilty. Where does that money come from? Is that civil also?
I'm going to have to read more about this now. Logically it doesn't make sense to me. There has to be morality behind the rulings...
Yes I am late on some of this and I did follow it in the beginning but lost interest because it sounded so preposterous.
www.headstonesband.com
Butbyes, they can’t fire a teacher because they are Republican or democrat. I would imagine even if McDonadls did and openly stated that was why, there’d be a successful lawsuit.
In your example you say how a public employee can’t be fired for what they say because of 1A. Probably any public employee says racist or sexists things off duty they can still get fired. They can’t get jailed or fined, but 1A doesn’t protect your job.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
pack the court now. add 6 more justices that are not extremists on either side. the country is more moderate, and the court should reflect the citizenry.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?
this gets past Mitch how?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I do not take abortion lightly, and I would hope other measure would be taken to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but personally, I am not against abortion.
But what I think that way doesn't matter because it's not a choice I ever had to make. It's a woman's choice, and it should remain a woman's choice. And if that choice is taken away from women, we will- in this country- have take a giant step backward. I find it very disturbing that the possible repeal of Roe vs. Wade is happening at all.
the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.
you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.
some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.