Hoping to trigger Supreme Court revolution, Arkansas bans abortion

Originally published at: Hoping to trigger Supreme Court revolution, Arkansas bans abortion | Boing Boing


“I’m going to waste your tax dollars on this attention getting project because I want to increase my GOP fame.”


This is literally ripping rights away from actual human beings. Real people will be harmed by this. Actual human beings.

It’s well past time to start taking these Christian dominionists seriously. Because some of us are and will get hurt by these laws.


And to imagine war happy Barry Goldwater warned folks about them. It just seems no one seems to grasp how dangerous it is to let religious fanatics dictate policy in any sphere of public life.


Wat?! When it’s so much more fun to blather on about Piers Wanksock flouncing off the set?



Right? This whole idea that they are really just trying to distract us from “real” issues is insulting, given how many shitty, oppressive laws they’ve been passing. But since they’re aimed at women and lately, transkids, it’s “not important” and “just for attention.” Fuck that.

I mean, seriously, how is THAT not a distraction, but an attack on women’s bodily autonomy is?

I did enjoy his flouncing off because he couldn’t stand the gentlest of rebukes, but still…


He got the Quiet Bits Out Loud memo I guess. You’d think that “I know that this is unconstitutional” would weaken his case.


The bill receiving overwhelming support in both chambers of its legislature

So many horrible arseholes.



It does seem like this bill is so extreme, even by conservative pro-life standards, that it could undermine their long-held and somewhat successful strategy of chipping away at R.v.W. one piece at a time. One could imagine one of the Supreme Court justices asking the Arkansas state council something like this: “Mr Smith, wouldn’t this bill prevent my tween granddaughter from seeking an abortion, even via a ‘morning after pill,’ in the event that she was violently raped by a home intruder?” Scenarios like that make even some of the most ardent anti-abortion folks get a little iffy. (Yeah, I know, not all of them would care)


I have never understood these exceptions for rape and incest. Are these humans with immortal souls, or aren’t they? If it’s okay to murder these babies before they’re even born, because being created from rape or incest their lives apparently don’t count the same, is it okay to murder an adult if you learn that they were created so? Please explain, Governor.


That quote will greatly damage their chances of the bill getting to SCOTUS. It will die in appeals court.


I suppose that getting the law passed is less important to these arseholes than making the attempt. They can stoke up their base with how the Dems are stopping them from protecting unborn babies.


At which point I expect them the reconvene and pass a new similar tweaked bill, having learned their lesson. Lather, rinse, repeat. Bastards.


Refugees and asylum

Apply for refugee status from within Canada, find out how to come to Canada as a refugee, sponsor a refugee or find refugee services in Canada.

We’re not perfect, but after 60,000 refugees arriving here, fleeing the U.S. during Trump’s presidency, I’m sure we can absorb a few more… :persevere:

Posted out of empathy… I really don’t know where to start…


The goal was never about “saving babies”. It’s always about controlling women.

Their goal is to overturn RvW and ensure that women are stripped of our constitutional rights.


And one could imagine the state council leaning close and saying “don’t worry, this is only for the poors; folks like us will be able to get it done quietly someplace else. You know; just like the good old days.”


My brother has shut down pro-life arguments with the following thought experiment:

Let us suppose a degree of medical certainty that does not exist.
If a woman is carrying a pregnancy and has a heart disease that will kill her with 100% certainty if she goes to term, but can be cured if she ends the pregnancy. Is an abortion OK in this instance? (Most answer well, yes, the life of the mother is at stake!)
Now let us present the same situation, but the child is now 5 years old, and the Mom needs a heart transplant. Is it OK to take the child’s heart? (Of course not! Murder!)
And yet you hold that the fetus has rights equal to the born child, correct? (Well, yes…)
No, you do not. The fetus is totally reliant on the Mom’s body and is not capable of independent existence. You have already said that the one does not have the same rights as the other, you just do not want to actually deal with it.
(Usually leads to hateful stares)


There’s a slight distinction though since in the first case the child will die when the mother does. There’s a damage limitation exercise, one life or two lives?
The second case is this life or that life?

1 Like

The fact that it’s so obviously unconstitutional is why the Supreme Court probably won’t ever hear the case at all. The district court will strike it down and, since there aren’t any legal questions not already covered by binding precedent, there’s no grounds to appeal (barring procedural issues, but that would just send it back to district court where the law would still be thrown out).