House passes legislation to create statutory right to abortion as battle over Texas law heats up
The House on Friday passed legislation that would create a statutory right for health-care professionals to provide abortions, amid an intensifying legal battle over a Texas law that is the most restrictive in the nation.
H.R. 3755, the Women’s Health Protection Act, was approved by the Democratic-controlled House 218 to 211, but faces tough odds in the evenly divided Senate.
The measure states that health-care providers have a statutory right to provide, and patients have a right to receive, abortion services without any number of limitations that states and opponents of the procedure have sought to impose.
The measure would essentially codify Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right to abortion before viability, usually around 22 to 24 weeks.
The new Texas law, which took effect Sept. 1 after the Supreme Court refused to immediately block its enforcement, bans abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy and makes no exceptions for rape, sexual abuse or incest.
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks. They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks. They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
No, they don't. Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment. The TX law is completely different. It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff. It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit. It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe. The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion.
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks. They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
No, they don't. Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment. The TX law is completely different. It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff. It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit. It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe. The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion.
Ahh yes. Got it. The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.
But no one else is following? I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks. They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
No, they don't. Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment. The TX law is completely different. It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff. It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit. It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe. The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion.
Ahh yes. Got it. The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.
But no one else is following? I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights. As much as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc.
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks. They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
No, they don't. Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment. The TX law is completely different. It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff. It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit. It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe. The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion.
Ahh yes. Got it. The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.
But no one else is following? I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights. As much as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc.
The first one they want and will try in other states for. The other 2 will never happen.
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks. They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
No, they don't. Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment. The TX law is completely different. It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff. It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit. It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe. The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion.
Ahh yes. Got it. The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.
But no one else is following? I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights. As much as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc.
The first one they want and will try in other states for. The other 2 will never happen.
Right, but what about in blue states? That's where the precedence comes in. It would very easily spiral out of control.
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks. They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
No, they don't. Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment. The TX law is completely different. It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff. It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit. It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe. The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion.
Ahh yes. Got it. The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.
But no one else is following? I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights. As much as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc.
The first one they want and will try in other states for. The other 2 will never happen.
Right, but what about in blue states? That's where the precedence comes in. It would very easily spiral out of control.
You really think they have an interest in actually doing that? Something would have been done when they had both the House and Senate.
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks. They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
No, they don't. Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment. The TX law is completely different. It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff. It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit. It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe. The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion.
Ahh yes. Got it. The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.
But no one else is following? I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights. As much as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc.
Yes great point. Pandora's box to circumvent the Bill of Rights on almost anything.
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks. They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
No, they don't. Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment. The TX law is completely different. It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff. It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit. It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe. The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion.
Ahh yes. Got it. The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.
But no one else is following? I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights. As much as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc.
The first one they want and will try in other states for. The other 2 will never happen.
Right, but what about in blue states? That's where the precedence comes in. It would very easily spiral out of control.
You really think they have an interest in actually doing that? Something would have been done when they had both the House and Senate.
If the TX rule were to be granted precedence by the SC there is no limit to what kinds of similar laws could be made. So yes I think fair is fair if TX gets upheld. I doubt it will because the heavily conservative court has the foresight to see that this will lead to laws against their favorite wedge issues if given standing.
Additionally you don't need house and senate majorities on the national level if your party controls the state where such a law would be set up.
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks. They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
No, they don't. Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment. The TX law is completely different. It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff. It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit. It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe. The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion.
Ahh yes. Got it. The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.
But no one else is following? I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights. As much as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc.
The first one they want and will try in other states for. The other 2 will never happen.
Right, but what about in blue states? That's where the precedence comes in. It would very easily spiral out of control.
You really think they have an interest in actually doing that? Something would have been done when they had both the House and Senate.
If the TX rule were to be granted precedence by the SC there is no limit to what kinds of similar laws could be made. So yes I think fair is fair if TX gets upheld. I doubt it will because the heavily conservative court has the foresight to see that this will lead to laws against their favorite wedge issues if given standing.
Additionally you don't need house and senate majorities on the national level if your party controls the state where such a law would be set up.
I was thinking of a national bill, sorry. I was getting ahead of myself.
0
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,644
Iran doubles down on abortion and contraception restrictions
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
TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law. But at that point, TX won't care. The whole point was to avoid Roe. But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3. Then state laws kick in. But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue.
Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks. They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
No, they don't. Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment. The TX law is completely different. It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff. It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit. It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe. The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion.
Ahh yes. Got it. The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.
But no one else is following? I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights. As much as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc.
yep. One of the justices pointed that out.
California can’t ban guns because of the constitution but they could follow Texas’s lead and pass a law that gives a private citizen the right to sue a store, a manufacture, the delivery driver, the salesman and anyone who facilitated the sale of that gun. Thus indirectly banning guns by bankrupting anyone involved in their sale
… but the state didn’t ban guns so they are in the clear.
that’s how short sighted these people who wrote this bill are. It would be a disaster for republicans in the long term solely based on demographic shifts on a whole host of issues
From Letter From an American. But you sure as hell want people who don't want to have kids to have to have them. Pro-life, my ass. Oh, and what are public schools for? You know, the ones that you don't want sex education taught or birth control made available? Yea, those. I guess we all just exist for you, eh senator? What a guy.
In contrast, when asked earlier this week about childcare in this moment when the pandemic has created a severe childcare shortage—a gap Biden’s Build Back Better bill is designed in part to address—Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) made it clear that he saw no such role for government. “People decide to have families and become parents, that’s something they need to consider when they make that choice,” Johnson said. “I’ve never really felt it was society’s responsibility to take care of other people’s children.”
Ron Johnson, the US senator for hot takes, famed for such hits as “[the Capitol riot] seemed like a peaceful protest to me” and “mouthwash has been proven to kill the coronavirus”, is at it again. On Wednesday, Johnson, the senior Republican senator from Wisconsin, told local news station WKBT: “People decide to have families and become parents. That’s something they need to consider when they make that choice.”
He continued: “I’ve never really felt it was society’s responsibility to take care of other people’s children.”
Notably, Johnson also believes it is his right to decide for a family whether or not they should have a child. He is vociferously anti-abortion, and last February co-sponsored a bill making it a criminal offense to perform or attempt an abortion after 20 weeks.
Oh boy. What a party. Or the next Hitler? Or POOTWH? "Legitimate rape." Let that sink in. Get raped, carry to term. Then what? Raise the child as a single mom? Sure, sounds about right.
Mich. GOP governor candidate said rape victims shouldn’t have abortions: ‘Baby inside them may be the next president’
When Garrett Soldano was asked on a right-wing podcast how he would“ensure the sanctity of life” in Michigan, the Republican candidatefor governor said he would stop at nothing to protect a fetus.
Even in cases where victims of rape become pregnant, Soldano said, “we’re always going to fight for life.”
“They don’t know that little baby inside them may be the next president, may be the next person who changes humanity,” Soldano said on the “Face the Facts” podcast.
A video of the Jan. 19 episode, posted on Twitterby Heartland Signal, a liberal news site focused on Midwestpolitics, went viral Monday. As of early Tuesday, it had racked up over 460,000 views.
Many politicians and activists who support abortion rights condemned Soldano’s comments. State Sen. Erika Geiss (D) called his remarks “disgusting.”
“We should be inspiring women who’ve been raped to press charges [and] we should have a system that takes them seriously,” Geiss tweeted. “We should have a world where men don’t think they’re entitled to women’s bodies.”
Soldano is not the first political candidate to take heat after giving an interview about abortion rights. In 2012, during his campaign for U.S. Senate, former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said in an interview that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy. He added that “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin, who died in October, apologized for his comments but later said he regretted doing so. In 2019, when then-Florida House Speaker José Oliva (R) apologized for referring to pregnant women as “host bodies” several times during a TV news interview about an antiabortion bill.
Soldano, a chiropractor from southwest Michigan, has never run for political office and is considered an underdog in the Republican primary race, according to the Detroit News. But the paper reported in November that Soldano had the second-highest fundraising numbers of the 11 candidates.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Cheers,
HFD
House passes legislation to create statutory right to abortion as battle over Texas law heats up
The House on Friday passed legislation that would create a statutory right for health-care professionals to provide abortions, amid an intensifying legal battle over a Texas law that is the most restrictive in the nation.
H.R. 3755, the Women’s Health Protection Act, was approved by the Democratic-controlled House 218 to 211, but faces tough odds in the evenly divided Senate.
The measure states that health-care providers have a statutory right to provide, and patients have a right to receive, abortion services without any number of limitations that states and opponents of the procedure have sought to impose.
The measure would essentially codify Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right to abortion before viability, usually around 22 to 24 weeks.
The new Texas law, which took effect Sept. 1 after the Supreme Court refused to immediately block its enforcement, bans abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy and makes no exceptions for rape, sexual abuse or incest.
House passes legislation to create statutory right to abortion as battle over Texas law heats up - The Washington Post
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
But no one else is following? I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Additionally you don't need house and senate majorities on the national level if your party controls the state where such a law would be set up.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/01/iran-doubles-down-abortion-contraception-restrictions/
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
California can’t ban guns because of the constitution but they could follow Texas’s lead and pass a law that gives a private citizen the right to sue a store, a manufacture, the delivery driver, the salesman and anyone who facilitated the sale of that gun. Thus indirectly banning guns by bankrupting anyone involved in their sale
… but the state didn’t ban guns so they are in the clear.
that’s how short sighted these people who wrote this bill are. It would be a disaster for republicans in the long term solely based on demographic shifts on a whole host of issues
In contrast, when asked earlier this week about childcare in this moment when the pandemic has created a severe childcare shortage—a gap Biden’s Build Back Better bill is designed in part to address—Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) made it clear that he saw no such role for government. “People decide to have families and become parents, that’s something they need to consider when they make that choice,” Johnson said. “I’ve never really felt it was society’s responsibility to take care of other people’s children.”
Ron Johnson, the US senator for hot takes, famed for such hits as “[the Capitol riot] seemed like a peaceful protest to me” and “mouthwash has been proven to kill the coronavirus”, is at it again. On Wednesday, Johnson, the senior Republican senator from Wisconsin, told local news station WKBT: “People decide to have families and become parents. That’s something they need to consider when they make that choice.”
He continued: “I’ve never really felt it was society’s responsibility to take care of other people’s children.”
Notably, Johnson also believes it is his right to decide for a family whether or not they should have a child. He is vociferously anti-abortion, and last February co-sponsored a bill making it a criminal offense to perform or attempt an abortion after 20 weeks.
Childcare spending not your responsibility, senator? What fine Republican hypocrisy | Poppy Noor | The GuardianLibtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Mich. GOP governor candidate said rape victims shouldn’t have abortions: ‘Baby inside them may be the next president’
When Garrett Soldano was asked on a right-wing podcast how he would “ensure the sanctity of life” in Michigan, the Republican candidate for governor said he would stop at nothing to protect a fetus.
Even in cases where victims of rape become pregnant, Soldano said, “we’re always going to fight for life.”
“They don’t know that little baby inside them may be the next president, may be the next person who changes humanity,” Soldano said on the “Face the Facts” podcast.
A video of the Jan. 19 episode, posted on Twitter by Heartland Signal, a liberal news site focused on Midwest politics, went viral Monday. As of early Tuesday, it had racked up over 460,000 views.
Many politicians and activists who support abortion rights condemned Soldano’s comments. State Sen. Erika Geiss (D) called his remarks “disgusting.”
“We should be inspiring women who’ve been raped to press charges [and] we should have a system that takes them seriously,” Geiss tweeted. “We should have a world where men don’t think they’re entitled to women’s bodies.”
Soldano is not the first political candidate to take heat after giving an interview about abortion rights. In 2012, during his campaign for U.S. Senate, former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said in an interview that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy. He added that “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin, who died in October, apologized for his comments but later said he regretted doing so. In 2019, when then-Florida House Speaker José Oliva (R) apologized for referring to pregnant women as “host bodies” several times during a TV news interview about an antiabortion bill.
Soldano, a chiropractor from southwest Michigan, has never run for political office and is considered an underdog in the Republican primary race, according to the Detroit News. But the paper reported in November that Soldano had the second-highest fundraising numbers of the 11 candidates.
Garrett Soldano, Michigan Republican governor candidate, said rape victims shouldn’t have abortions - The Washington Post
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©