Jun 25th, 2022 | In the News


Submitted by Hubcap on

I started volunteering as a clinic escort in the early 80s. Up until last year when I left the US to retire, I served on the board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, so I have about 40 years of skin in this game of sexual and reproductive freedom, along with keeping peoples' imaginary cloud-being friend out of our government.

The rage and betrayal that I feel right now, I really can't express in words. That these god-believing retards have so much power that they can enforce their religious rules of the rest of us is infuriating.

There is so much to unpack here. From Clarence "Uncle Tom, the House Negro" Thomas to Brett "Judge Frat Boy" Kavanaugh, these religious nutjobs have way too much power and are now quite literally enforcing Catholic church doctrine on the American people. I have been sounding this alarm for decades, and it gives me no pleasures whatsoever to have been proven correct.

Make no mistake, these motherfuckers are not going to stop now. They cited legal precedent from a 17th century judge who ordered witches burned! Thomas has already announced his intention to go after *Griswold v Connecticut next. We will go back to when my mom had to have a note signed by my dad to show the pharmacist so she could buy condoms, back to when women couldn't have their own credit card, buy a house or even a car. Back to when it was not uncommon to see signs that said "Niggers Caught Out After Dark Will Be Shot", and "queer bashing" was a drinking game. This was the "Christian Nation" many of us Boomers were born into and many of us have spent our lives changing it. Which is why so much of this seems so shocking and surprising to you you younger people, It ain't new: the cancer was just in remission for a while.

But y'alls didn't pay any attention. "It's their religion and you have to respect it" you said. Well, here we are. The fox is in the henhouse and most of our chickens are dead. Fuck you.

*That's the case that allowed single women access to birth control. And when my mom no longer needed that note.

Submitted by aofrailey on

Prior to the "Roe" decision, men were able to avoid the consequences of having a child out of wedlock because all he had to do was deny the child was his. Nowadays, DNA analysis has significantly increased the father's interest in whether or not he has an unwanted child, which is likely to impose an enormous financial burden on him. Hopefully men's increased (over the pre-Roe era) skin in the game will facilitate the passing of legislation which supports abortion and other conception/birth prevention strategies.

Submitted by masterautotech on

What The Hell. The Religious nut jobs have taken over. They don't give a damn about birth or kids or life its about control. This is going to be very bad. SO many unwanted kids will be born into the world. So many kids will suffer. so many women will suffer even more. and its all women's fault for not voting when they needed to vote to protect their rights. its not going to be good for men, OK MEN, GUYS, ITS TIME TO LISTEN GOOD USE CONDOMS 100% OF THE TIME. COMDOMS 100% OF THE TIME ALL THE TIME OR NO SEX.

Submitted by Dditzhazy on

Not renewing my membership this month after 4 years due to financial reasons. I will probably be back in the future. But I appreciate your vast insight into many issues. I pray for everyone here for your health, prosperity and continued accumulation of knowledge and understanding.

Submitted by aofrailey on

Think of abortion as similar to murder, from a legal perspective. Most murder is not a Federal crime. For a murder to be a Federal crime, it has to meet certain criteria, such as the individual involves multiple states in the commission of the crime.

As such, we should we should not blame the Supreme Court for the decision to overturn Roe. v. Wade. The Justices' job is to determine the constitutionality of legislation produced by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government. It should not matter what their personal beliefs are regarding a woman's right to choose.

Several years ago I made a detailed, excruciating assessment of whether I Roe v Wade is constitutional. As an independent, slightly-left-of-center voter, I concluded that Roe v. Wade is indeed an example of "legislating from the bench". Roe extends the scope of the constitution beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution itself and the bill of rights, in my opinion. These documents strictly constrain the jurisdiction of the Federal government, maximizing the powers left to the state. To me it is entirely reasonable for the Justices to conclude Roe is an overreach.

By the same token, any potential future law passed by Congress to guarantee the right to choose, would likely also be deemed unconstitutional. Like it or not, any fight for a woman's right to choose is going to occur at the state level.