Fifth Circuit Rules For Texas In Blocking Pill-Induced Abortions As “Non-Essential” Procedures

US-CourtOfAppeals-5thCircuit-SealOne of the more interesting legal fights during the pandemic have centered on abortion rights in Texas.  Some governors, like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, have sought to limit abortions as non-essential or “not immediately medically necessary” procedures during the pandemic.  That has been challenged by pro-choice advocates who insist that this is just an opportunistic use of the pandemic.  One such fight is bouncing around the Fifth Circuit over the use of pill-induced abortions.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just ruled in favor of the state restriction.

The appeal itself has ping ponged back and forth in the court. Just a week earlier, the Fifth Circuit indicated that Texas had not effectively demonstrated that pill-induced abortions are an actual “procedure.” However, on Monday, the court seemed to do a 180 degree turn and upheld the state order.

The two pertinent provisions are:

GA-09: [A]ll licensed health care professionals and all licensed health care facilities shall postpone all surgeries and procedures that are not immediately medically necessary to correct a serious medical condition of, or to preserve the life of, a patient who without immediate performance of the surgery or procedure would be at risk for serious adverse medical consequences or death, as determined by the patient’s physician.

GA-15: All licensed health care professionals and all licensed health care facilities shall postpone all surgeries and procedures that are not medically necessary to diagnose or correct a serious medical condition of, or to preserve the life of, a patient who without timely performance of the surgery or procedure would be at risk for serious adverse medical consequences or death, as determined by the patient’s physician[.]

See Tex. Exec. Order No. GA-15 (Apr. 17, 2020), TRANS_04-17-2020.pdf.

What is also interesting is that this a mandamus action, a difficult vehicle for appeal.  Yet, the state filed a writ of mandamus vacating the district court’s temporary restraining order that exempted abortions from GA-09, an emergency measure temporarily.

The Court ruled rejected the constitutionally based claim: “The district court’s treatment of GA-09 as “an absolute ban on abortion” as applied to this category of women was obviously wrong. Abbott III, 2020 WL 1815587, at *6. A woman who would be 18 weeks LMP when GA-09 expires has up to four weeks to legally procure an abortion in Texas. No case we know of calls that an ‘absolute ban’ on abortion.”

Given the loosening limit of the pandemic in states like Texas, this case could be moot before an appeal can be argued to the Supreme Court. However, it would raise an interesting balancing of public health emergency powers of the states against the individual right to abortion services.

Here is the opinion: In re Greg Abbott

218 thoughts on “Fifth Circuit Rules For Texas In Blocking Pill-Induced Abortions As “Non-Essential” Procedures”

  1. Trump Badgers Scientist At Daily Briefing 

    But CDC Director Refuses To Back Down

    Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, issued a candid warning Tuesday in a Washington Post interview: A simultaneous flu and coronavirus outbreak next fall and winter “will actually be even more difficult than the one we just went through,” adding that calls and protests to “liberate” states from stay-at-home orders — as President Trump has tweeted — were “not helpful.”

    The next morning, Trump cracked down with a Twitter edict: Redfield had been totally misquoted in a cable news story summarizing the interview, he claimed, and would be putting out a statement shortly.

    By Wednesday evening, Redfield appeared at the daily White House briefing — saying he had been accurately quoted after all, while also trying to soften his words as the president glowered next to him.

    “I didn’t say that this was going to be worse,” Redfield said. “I said it was going to be more difficult and potentially complicated because we’ll have flu and Coronavirus circulating at the same time.”

    He added: “ ‘It’s more difficult’ doesn’t mean it’s going to be more impossible.”

    The remarkable spectacle provided another illustration of the president’s tenuous relationship with his own administration’s scientific and public health experts, where the unofficial message from the Oval Office is an unmistakable warning: Those who challenge the president’s erratic and often inaccurate coronavirus views will be punished — or made to atone.–as-long-as-they-toe-the-line/2020/04/22/a0a67c12-84b9-11ea-878a-86477a724bdb_story.html


      This link contains a video clip from today’s White House briefing. Trump introduces Mr Redfield as someone who was “ridiculously’ misquoted. But Redfield refuses to play along. Instead he only substitutes “more difficult” for “worse”.

  2. The ruling upholds the State of Texas’ police power in preventing elective medical procedures from happening at all in Texas during a pandemic. A legal carve-out for abortions in that ban in the absence of evidence that an abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life weakens the entire executive order to attacks from all political azimuths. The Fifth Circuit ruled correctly in this case,

    1. What is a medical procedure? What kind of instruments are used? How is hospital bed space taken up? Of course, if it’s not a medical procedure, then it’s not “essential.” — like gun shops.

    2. It’s not an emergency to anyone but the woman who has a limited amount of time to rid her body of the unwanted parasite. And, to too many, the needs of the woman mean nothing.

      1. Whenever you say ‘need’, you have an implicit purpose in mind. The purpose in this case is unworthy. People who will call an unborn child an ‘unwanted parasite’ ain’t ever gonna get it.

  3. So glad to see Trump Campaign hitting the Dems as hard as they hit …well …everyone

    Death becomes her… ala mode

  4. As it says in the Bible, “Knock and ye shall receive!”
    Should it be a crime to knowingly expose someone to HIV without disclosing it?

    Most sane people would say yes. But a widely panned Vox article published this week said that state laws making it a crime to not disclose your HIV status “have only increased stigma and abuse.” And apparently, many 2020 Democrats agree with this ludicrous, insane point of view.

    This was a common theme at Thursday night’s CNN town hall focused on gay and transgender issues, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign. Host Anderson Cooper, for example, called laws criminalizing HIV nondisclosure “antiquated” and based on “old science.” Presidential contender Pete Buttigieg agreed, saying, “It’s not fair and it needs to change.” And both on the CNN stage and in her new LGBT issues platform, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has endorsed decriminalizing HIV transmission as well.

    Sen. Cory Booker has also signed on to this radicalism, explicitly agreeing that laws requiring disclosure of HIV status to sexual partners are “archaic” and have “no scientific basis,” calling for their complete repeal.
    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. and
      California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed California Senate Bill 239 into law. Starting on January 1, 2018, it will no longer be a felony in that state to knowingly expose a sexual partner to HIV with the intent of transmitting the virus. The law also eliminates the penalty for knowingly donating HIV-infected blood.[1]
      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Another reason not to visit California. Who knows when you’ll be injured or fall ill and need a bllod transfusion there.

    2. And
      OLYMPIA — Washington state health officials want to change a rarely used law that makes it a felony to intentionally expose a sexual partner to HIV, saying the current penalties don’t have an impact on reducing transmissions or improving public health.

      The state Department of Health has proposed legislation that would make such exposure a misdemeanor, asserting the state’s HIV laws aren’t reflective of current treatments and perpetuate a stigma against people living with the virus.

      “When we allow stigma to permeate, when we have a statutory framework in which people are afraid to come forward about their HIV status, we put the public health at risk, and individuals at significant risk,” Seattle Democratic Rep. Nicole Macri, a lead proponent of the measure, told the Senate Health and Long Term Care Committee during a hearing Friday. A committee vote is expected Monday.

      The Democratic-controlled House passed the measure with a 57-40 vote last week but accepted an amendment on the floor that maintains the felony charge for someone who intentionally transmits HIV to a child or vulnerable adult, and requires them to register as a sex offender.
      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. What this is telling you is that donor-class poofs who patronize the Democratic Party are usually HIV+ rather than HIV-

    3. And, the Obama White House!
      National HIV/AIDS strategy

      In July 2010, the White House announced a major change in its HIV/AIDS policy; the “National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States” stated that “the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws [that criminalize HIV infection] run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment.”[6] The administration’s strategy cited a 2008 paper by Scott Burris and Edwin Cameron, a South African judge: “The use of criminal law to address HIV infection is inappropriate except in rare cases in which a person acts with conscious intent to transmit HIV and does so.”[7]

      In September 2010, the Center for HIV Law and Policy launched the Positive Justice Project, a campaign to combat HIV-related stigma and discrimination against people with HIV by the US criminal justice system.[8] In November the Project released a 293-page manual detailing HIV-specific laws and prosecutions in the 50 states, District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, Federal government, and the U.S. military.[9]

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws [that criminalize HIV infection] run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission

        I don’t think there’s a single Democratic policy that doesn’t rely on a mix of attitudinizing, conceit and lying.

    4. SQUEAKY: This is from the Vox article linked within your story. It seems you’re misrepresenting this issue in a very malicious way.
      …………………………………….. ……..

      Mark Hunter, for example, told Vox that he contracted HIV at the age of 7 through treatment for his hemophilia. Hunter led a healthy and active life — he had a six-figure job in Washington, DC, he said, when, in 2006, two ex-partners filed charges against him for failing to disclose his HIV status to them. Neither woman had contracted the virus, but nonetheless, he was sentenced to 12 years in prison in Arkansas, where the charges were filed.

      Hunter ended up serving three years. Today, he is out on parole and living in Louisiana, but he still has to register as a sex offender. He is an outspoken advocate against laws of the kind that sent him to prison. “When we talk about criminalization, the base issue is stigma,” he told Vox. “That stigma comes from fear.”

      1. Mark Hunter, for example, told Vox that he contracted HIV at the age of 7 through treatment for his hemophilia. Irrelevant to the issue. The only purpose of this fact is to persuade on emotion. Fail

        Hunter led a healthy and active life — he had a six-figure job in Washington, DC, Irrelevant to the issue, with the obvious exception that he was HIV positive and failed to disclose that to his sex partners. Fail

        when, in 2006, two ex-partners filed charges against him for failing to disclose his HIV status to them. Neither woman had contracted the virus, but nonetheless, Irrelevant to the issue as he was legally required to disclose his HIV status. Fail

        He was sentenced to 12 years in prison in Arkansas, where the charges were filed. Where else should they have been filed? That’s a tough sentence, you should avoid living there.

        Hunter ended up serving three years. Today, he is out on parole and living in Louisiana, but he still has to register as a sex offender. If that’s what the law has to be to protect innocent people from future non-disclosure, then I’m all for it.

        He is an outspoken advocate against laws of the kind that sent him to prison. Do you know of any silent advocates?

        “When we talk about criminalization, the base issue is stigma,” he told Vox. “That stigma comes from fear.” Stigma? Fear? You’re carrying a potentially lethal virus that could be transmitted to people without their consent. Big time fail.

        1. You realize our supposedly short-staffed newsrooms either flooded the zone to find this cherry-picked example or were happy to act as a steno-pool for an advocacy group who had been flogging this case.

        2. HIV is still a political stigma. HIV patients who are virally suppressed and treatment compliant have a two-fold increased risk in cardiovascular mortality and neurodegenerative decline compared with the general population because the virus never leaves their bodies. The virus remains in reservoirs where the drugs never reach the tissues (lymphatic).

          Getting a cardiologist or neurologist to treat HIV+ compliant patient is next to impossible, hence my focus as a physician and researcher

          Plasma tissue factor and immune activation are associated with carotid intima–media thickness progression in treated HIV infection

          ’A man is as old as his arteries’ (attributed to Thomas Sydenham, the English Hippocrates)

          1. HIV is still a political stigma.

            Huh? You open with that and then proceed to identify the risks to anyone infected by it. You then identify your own medical community and their stigma related to avoiding treating these patients. When are you going to connect the dots to political stigma?

      2. I have had not a few gay male patients who seroconverted to HIV+ because their partners deceived them. It has been happening since the 1990s when HIV testing results were known and it still happens today.

        The 2017 CA bill Squeaky references changes the penalties from felony to misdemeanor. However, I have never had a newly seroconverted gay male patient deny their own culpability and hence lack of responsibility. You have to believe in universal precautions: everyone is infected (HIV, Hep C, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, or SARS-CoV-2) until proven otherwise. Women who “surprisingly become” pregnant out of wedlock used to own up to their own irresponsibility while the cowardly men who impregnated them got a pass. Alas abortion has given these women today an out. Not so for seroconverted HIV+ patients.

        Squeaky and TIA are wallowing and peddling animus much like the HIV+ assailant. There is nothing Christ-like in their posts.

        1. If you think expecting HIV positive homos to have sense of responsibility is animus, then color me animated!

          Look, if RayRay, the Negro, knocks up Shemeeka the ghettopotamus, we expect RayRay to pay child support until the brat is 18 years old, or in prison, whichever comes first. Because it costs money to raise a kid. And if he doesn’t, we can lock him up for failure to support.

          Why should not an irresponsible homo who passes the bug be tasked with the same responsibility? If Homo A gives the bug to Homo B, then Homo B is going to go on disability, and get money each month and run up huge medical bills to be paid probably by the taxpayers. Why should not Homo A be tasked with support??? And locked up if he doesn’t pay, which he won’t because he is on disability and Medicare too. Or Medicaid.

          And why should not homos be liable under the same criminal statutes as anybody else who knowingly spreads a disease? What is so special about Sodomites that they should not bear the same legal remedies as anyone else?

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter


      A study conducted in Toronto between 2010 and 2012 (laws criminalizing HIV exposure also exist in Canada) found that 7 percent of men who had sex with men were less likely to get an HIV test for fear of future prosecution — the study authors estimated that this fear could lead to an 18.5 percent increase in HIV transmission. And in general, HIV criminalization laws likely contribute to stigma and discrimination around HIV, which world health groups like UNAIDS have identified as some of the biggest barriers to effective treatment and prevention.

      Anyone interested in this topic should read the Vox article linked within Squeeky’s link. This issue is far more complicated than Squeeky represents.

      1. Here’s a critical-thinking challenge for you Paint Chips.

        Do you support enabling gun owners to conceal carry unlicensed firearms, transport them without restrictions and transfer ownership of any weapon without a license or permit?

        Hint: There is a logical connection to this thread.

        Ready. Go.

        1. Olly, I have no solid opinion on this. The issue had escaped my notice. So I’m grateful to Squeeky.

          But I question if these raps need to be Felony First Offenses. And the article from Vox conveyed that question well. Mark Hunter may have deserved court supervision. But 12 years in prison is insane.

          1. I suppose that it is a waste of my time to write that reading these comments is a waste of my time.

          2. But on the other hand, as Estovir pointed out above:

            “HIV patients who are virally suppressed and treatment compliant have a two-fold increased risk in cardiovascular mortality and neurodegenerative decline compared with the general population because the virus never leaves their bodies. The virus remains in reservoirs where the drugs never reach the tissues (lymphatic).

            Getting a cardiologist or neurologist to treat HIV+ compliant patient is next to impossible, hence my focus as a physician and researcher.
            HIV is still a very bad thing to have. Mark Hunter above exposed two people, at least, to the disease. At a time when it was still pretty lethal. Why should he not have been punished? And why should he not be on a sex offender’s registry. That is what it is for. People who do bad sexual things.

            Can you imagine the amount of worrying those two women went thru. FWIW, I once knew a woman from Arkansas whose low life husband gave her HIV. She was beautiful, and it forever changed her life forever. I think he was a drug user, IIRC.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

      2. I do not think it is far more complicated at all. I think that line is a cop out for people who do not want to do the simple, common sense thing that would be a good answer.

        For example, we make “pregnancy” complicated because we do not wish to do the simple, common sense thing which is, if you are a woman, do not have sex with any man with whom you would not want to have a baby. And when you have sex, if you do not wish to become pregnant, use some form of birth control. Of course, this means that women should not have sex with some dude they just met at the bar or on Tindr, or have sex with their married boss, or just hop into the sack without taking the pill, etc. That is too simple, so we have to have abortions to bail out these people.

        Or, for illegal immigrants, we have to have whole new laws because the law we do not wish to do the simple, common sense thing which is to use e-verify, punish employers who break the law, and deport and banish on pain of imprisonment if you come back the illegal immigrants.

        Or, here, if you are HIV positive, you either eschew sex altogether, just as if you had a raging case of syphilis, or you make sure your temporary sex receptacle knows you are HIV positive, or you use a condom. But, homos do not wish to do the simple, common sense things, so they confuse the issue with the point being, they don’t have to go to jail if they pass the bug to some other loser.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  5. Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks

    The American fertility rate, at 1.6, is in a “death spiral” – more Americans die than are born.

    Women were allowed to shut down the production line of Americans.

    Much of the future American population is aborted.

    Various and sundry hyphenates and Illegal aliens are imported to fill the vacuum created by American women and which American

    economic nature abhors.

    Americans were convinced to level the population for the benefit of “the Earth” in 1960 (ZPG – Zero Population Growth).

    American corporations refused to accept diminished, nay, lethal revenue and EPS and began increasing the population with imports.

    1. What’s wrong with this picture?


    The export of American capital and production to achieve Marxist redistribution of wealth and the dominion of global communism.

    2. Who runs America?


    Karl Marx

  6. Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks

    Oh look, it seems the mutants are whipped up, howling and launching themselves against the walls because they don’t believe in abortion. Good job, Professor. Maybe that was the desired effect?

    At least we’ve settled that aggrieved white male repubs should never personally have an abortion.

    1. Ya have to admit it, Turley knows how to throw out the red meat for his base. It’s only a matter of time before he throws out his favorite, The “HILLARY” bomb.

      1. “FishWings says:April 22, 2020 at 3:01 PM

        Ya have to admit it, Turley knows how to throw out the red meat for his base. It’s only a matter of time before he throws out his favorite, The “HILLARY” bomb.”

        Or something about Nancy Pelosi.

    2. I have a neighbor I do not like.

      I don’t think he has matured or, otherwise, evolved.

      Whether he is sentient-cum-intelligent is a subject for debate.

      May I abort him at my discretion?

  7. You know what is amazing? There are bunches of people shills here going on about folks walking around calling for an end to social distancing, and complaining that “hey, they might infect somebody with the virus!” How un-civic!

    Yet, that same side of the political spectrum mostly believes that HIV positive people should be able to have sex and not warn their partner about their HIV status. They even want to decriminalize giving HIV to someone intentionally. Because. Stigma.

    Go figure.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky, give us the names of prominent liberals who think HIV Postive individuals have a right to spread the disease. Has Nancy Pelosi said this? Rachel Maddow?? Barack Obama???

      Or is your comment just mean-spirited tripe from a phony Christian??

      1. The propaganda infrastructure on this site is embedded like a tick. When they don’t want to hear facts or truth, they deflect on someone or something else.

        1. And yet you managed two posts in a matter of 3 minutes without citing one truth or fact. That’s called projection. Deal with it.

          1. You’re habit of saying the dumbest things because it’s easier for you, does not take away the fact that Trump supporters on this site, do not deal with facts or truth well, hence telling the truth about them does not go well.

            1. Prove it. Start citing facts/evidence and we can identify who is telling the truth. Until then, you’re a projecting hypocrite.

      2. give us the names of prominent liberals who think HIV Postive individuals have a right to spread the disease. Has Nancy Pelosi said this? Rachel Maddow?? Barack Obama???

        Paint Chips translator: Squeeky, I know there are liberals that hold that exact position, but I don’t know if my acceptable liberal mouthpieces have publicly held that position.

        1. Olly, yell us, ‘who’ are these peole???????

          I have never seen a news story saying that prominent liberals or Democrsts think HIV Positive people have a right to secrecy with regards to sex partners. And I would never, ever vote for any politician who advocated such irresponsibility.

          Olly you and Squeeky are scraping the bottom of the barrel regarding smears to use against liberals. But that’s par for the course for conservative Evangelicals.

          1. I have never seen a news story…

            It’s clearly evident by your ubiquitous demands to be provided evidence, that you would be doing yourself and this blog a service by going on hiatus from opining until you learn how to be better informed.

  8. I think by any reasonable interpretation of the empowering legislation, the court is using the wrong standard.

    The burden should be on the government to show why a good or service available before the pandemic should be unavailable now. Not merely if it’s “unnecessary.”

    Big Government is trying to get around that by stating that ANY time you leave your house, you become a menace to the public. Therefore, it is an intolerable threat to public health to purchase “unnecessary” goods and services. That strikes me as pretty weak to say the least.

    1. Steve, give it a rest. It’s a war, remember? People stand to die. I know 2 who have. No one is taking over anyone’s rights for the long term.

      1. I don’t get you bythebook. Are you supporting the Governor’s actions or are you opposing them?

  9. Christian Squeeky Is ‘Pro-Life’ On Abortion

    But She’s Hyper-Aware Of Black Crime Stats

    This is the same Squeeky Fromm on April 8 commenting on the column, “I Swear I Hit Them: Wisconsin Doctor And Spouse Allegegly Executed By Boyftiend Of Daughter”

    One is hard-pressed to understand why a commenter so aware of social ills linked to Blacks is dead-set against allowing poor women to have reproductive choices.
    Brad says:

    I do find it interesting that it’s mostly conservatives who are memorize black crime statistics. OBSESSED with race.


    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:

    I suspect that if you lived around a large number of blacks, you would be obsessed with race too. You kinda have to be. Even Southern Liberals don’t live in black areas, or send their kids to black schools, or fill up their cars at night in black areas. There is a reason why you see so many iron security bars on doors and windows in black neighborhoods.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  10. So, the pro-life people want the government to tell women what to do with their bodies, and at the same time the pro-life people want to walk and be in crowds during a deadly virus outbreak, but don’t want the government to tell them what to do.

    1. It is “settled science” that when a woman is pregnant, it is not just her body anymore. Another little person is living in there. That whole “what to do with their body” argument is specious and facile and only a moron would fall for it. My Goodness, why do you think we tell pregnant women not to smoke or drink alcohol, or take drugs??? Because IT IS NOT JUST THEIR BODY ANYMORE.

      Criminy, but are you really that stupid???

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. And a person that would spread a deadly virus to other people without their knowledge is OK? I bet you’re all in favor of having people in large crowds again. And for you it’s most likely because you want to light your TIKI touch again in a large group of very fine people.

      1. Steve, you mean other than violating pandemic rules of distancing no sane medical authorities disagrees with?

        1. What would your point be? If they oppose those restrictions, it follows they also oppose legal shenanigans like the one being perpetrated here.

          1. Steve, you asked what would make us think the protesters “support any type of pandemic abuse?” My point is their behavior.

            1. Fair enough. Let me tighten it up. By pandemic abuse I mean restrictions being put in place by the Governors like the one being attempted in the article. I would be careful about painting these folks with a broad brush and ascribing to them views they may not hold.

              1. I agree that some may not disregard social distancing. Some do.

                I don’t get your point. Are you saying some/most/all favor proper pandemic behavior like social distancing but are only protesting what they think is overreach by governors?

                1. That and I don’t think you had a homogenous group of pro-life people at these protests. And maybe FishWings didn’t mean to suggest that.

                  My view is that it was a very bad idea for Governors to start rattling off “essential” and “non-essential” goods.

                  I mean if a movie theater opens in an area that is spiking, the theatre will operate at a loss.. You don’t need the governor to be putting out countless edicts. It’s a recipe for unintended consequences.

    2. Good analogy, Fishwings. Yeah, they’re ‘pro-life’ on abortion, but able to tolerate ‘X’ number of deaths from a prematurely re-opened economy

      1. Two inescapable facts have been presented in this particular thread:
        1) Mr. Warner does, in fact, keep little journals about posters to a blog, the primary author of which he disagrees on (nearly?) every single issue, and
        2) Mr. Warner simply skips over entire replies so he can ignore any items that run counter to his rhetoric ramblings for which he has no reasonable response

        I wonder if he makes up little voices that he reads each poster’s respective comments in?

        “[T]hey’re ‘pro-life’ on abortion, but able to tolerate ‘X’ number of deaths from a prematurely re-opened economy” shows how simple-minded his rhetoric is. Let’s reduce the entirety of the argument for cautiously reemploying 22+ million people to a childish bumper sticker like, “you want to kill people!”

        Isn’t it interesting that Mr. Warner is up in arms to keep the entire nation closed due to the tragic loss of 46 thousand, but sees nothing wrong with allowing the active killing of 600 thousand innocents. Every. Single. Year.*

        (* on average)

        1. Dave: show us a poll that says the majority of Americans want to re-open the country. Because the surveys I have seen show that even a majority of Republicans prefer a cautious approach. A premature reopening could result in a second wave that sets us further back than we are now. Is that what you want?

          And by the way, Dave, I just read last night that Kentucky ranks near the bottom of states with regards to virus testing.

          1. show us a poll that says the majority of Americans want to re-open the country. Because the surveys I have seen show that even a majority of Republicans prefer a cautious approach.

            Damn boy, do you ever try to proofread your posts? Re-opening the country is the goal the majority of Americans approve of; how quickly to do that is the strategy being debated. Two different issues.

            1. Olly, we cant Reopen because we have no central leadership to facilitate the virus testing. We have a nightmare situation where the states are all competing with each other to obtain materials for widespread testing. Trump has actually abdicated any responsibility for widespread testing. He claims it’s the responsibility of states. And that, right there, is why we’ve been rendered a helpless giant. But Trump doesn’t get that so he tweets to militias!

              1. Don’t be such a helpless twit. Explain exactly how the President abdicates powers the central government doesn’t constitutionally have? He can and should defer to the rights of the states to manage intrastate affairs and should state governments fail in the management, it’s up to the state legislatures and it’s people to get different leadership. When that mismanagement becomes an interstate issue, the President should still defer (but monitor) to the other states to enact adequate controls. Should those controls fail, then the force of the central government needs to be employed (temporarily) until adequate controls are in place.

                  1. Chips,
                    That’s projection. It’s you that has no idea what I’m talking about. You’re so flummoxed in fact that your only response is to claim I’m the ignorant one. Where has that debate strategy every worked?

                    1. Olly, this pandemic is one of the 5 Biggest crises this country has ever faced. Our ability to cope with this hinges on widespread testing.

                      But the states are literally competing with each other. No national strategy! If this is a war we’re losing.

                      I’m not convinced we’re going to survive this crisis. People shouldn’t assume we are. We might be heading into a Mad Max type of future.

                    2. But the states are literally competing with each other. No national strategy!

                      Think bigger Seth. The result of ignoring the fundamental principle of self-reliance is being exposed in a very big way. Same with federalism and the creation of our massive, administrative state. The 9th and 10th amendments have become an afterthought. We will come out of this eventually and we will not go all Mad Max in the process. The question is what lessons will we learn from this? Hint: if it isn’t to decentralize government and restore power to the states and the people, then what an incredible waste of lives, liberty and property.

                    3. Well, if we are headed into a Mad Max future, call me prepared! Guns, ammo, food, etc. But I will need to get a snowplow welded to the front of my SUV, and some hardware cloth over the windows. Maybe put a gun mount in the moonroof???

                      Naw. and the cats and my BFF will just hunker down on the Texas bug-out farm with my dad and other family members.

                      Have to get my mobile home moved there.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

              2. Peter – the governors of CA, WA and OR are in concert (or collusion), as are the governors of NY, VT, CT, NJ and 3 others and there are some at least 8 Midwestern States that are colluding.

                Given what I have said above, is not the problem in the states, not the feds.? BTW, testing is up to the states.

                1. Paul, you’re totally misinformed. We’re only testing about 150,000 per week. Do the math and tell me that’s an acceptable rate for a country of 330 million.

                  The problem is the Federal government under Trump is doing absolutely NOTHING to speed up the effort for widespread testing. And that’s why we cant Reopen.

                  1. Peter – even if I tested you today and you tested normal, tomorrow you could have the ChiCom virus. As a fully qualified medical professional, how many people should we be be testing? What is the magic number according to your masters?

                    1. What is the magic number according to your masters?

                      Well that’s a softball question. The number is anything north of what makes President Trump and the Republicans look bad.

                    2. “Peter – even if I tested you today and you tested normal”

                      …But lets not deal with impossible hypotheticals.

                2. PCS, newsflash, the first two COVID-19 deaths occurred on Feb. 6 and 17 in Silicon Valley. Previously, it was believed that the first case was in an elder care home in Washington state circa Feb. 27.

                  1. George – I saw that article on those deaths. There are several entry points into the US from China.

              3. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution guarantee unenumerated rights to the People and limits the powers of the Federal government to those enumerated in the Constition. The President has decided not to usurp the states’ rights to protect their citizens as they see fit.

                The ventilator problem that’s loomed so large in the press was solved when the President and his Covid-19 team acted proactively, asking states to report their actual requirements for the devices, instead of the advice of the sum of their fears. It worked.

                On testing materials, we tried central control of testing materials by the Federal government. It failed – the procedures in place going back before 2016 crashed and burned in practice.

          2. Seth: Really? Again with the Royal We nonsense? Shirley that’s getting old–even for you.

            My post even includes the specific phrase “cautiously reemploying 22+ million people,” you nitwit. Come on, man: can’t you do any better than that at chasing rhetorical rabbits? Do you see it? Right there: the word “cautiously”???

            I would also point out that, as per your usual behavior, that you responded to nothing in my post’s two main, enumerated points. Likewise the minor point of making up little voices. Likewise, yet again, the point regarding your faux outrage vs. 600,000 deaths by abortions. You’ve made it abundantly clear which side of the debate actually, literally *wants* to kill people.

            If you’re not even gonna try, I don’t know what else to tell ya. Take your insipid bloviating to your room and let the adults talk.

            1. Dave, let’s cut the crap. You’re Estovir with the usual smears.

              It’s amazing how good Christians need to constantly be smearing. What a joke!!

              1. Yes: cut the crap. That’s the only words you’ve ever typed I agree with.

                You have no argument–and never really do.
                You do not advance the discussion.
                You have raised “doge and evade” to an art form.
                You are fixated on assigning someone else’s name to me.
                You whine about smears and attacks when faced with any truth or fact you find incompatible with the fantasy that is your life that you cannot possibly refute.

                And, to continue listing your failures**: you have yet to address a single point I’ve raised: either in this thread or ever. Indeed, you give leftists a very bad reputation as inept. I do, however, appreciate that you neglected to include the Royal We in your comment.

                **Please note: This list is far from exhaustive, but I don’t want to be seen as attacking you personally.

        2. Abortions have resulted in more deaths than Stalin and Mao’s murders combined, the 2 heroes of the irreligious Left

          Of course they defend killing babies. It is in their DNA:
          kill, kill, kill

          Regards to CCP Wuhan Virus

  11. If it’s close to viability then go ahead if it’s delayed past the point of viability which by the way does not include fetal beat then it must be delivered. That fetal blood business is just the mothers blood going through the developing fetus and does not count as viable. as would a preemie

  12. Mother Teresa courageously speaks about abortion at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 3, 1994, in front of pro-abortion politicians including President Clinton and Al Gore. Her amazing testimony is a testament to all Catholics to speak up for the unborn in our daily lives through faith and works.

    1. Estovir, politically Mother Theresa would have been a socialist. Is that cool with you?

      1. politically Mother Theresa would have been a socialist. Is that cool with you?

        Being a witless reductionist is not a good look, Peter.

        1. Absurd believes Mother Teresa was a Koch Sponsored advocate of Free Markets and card-carrying member of Club For Growth.

            1. Absurd, did Mother Teresa support Right To Work laws? Did Mother Teresa demand drug testing for Unemployment applicants? Did Mother Teresa support tax cuts for billionaires?

              1. Peter, you were the one who said Mother Theresa ‘would have been a socialist’. The Italian Communist press once declared Lucy van Pelt a ‘social fascist’. The brand of inanity’s the same.

                What she actually was was a sister with a vocation who built a ministry. The aims and acts of the Missionaries of Charity have only the most tenuous relation to the newspaper controversies you find so engrossing. They are orthagonal to them.

      2. Were she a socialist, she would not have been.

        Indeed, socialists are communists defined by discrete nomenclature.

        USSR anti-religious campaign (1921–1928)

        The USSR anti-religious campaign (1921–1928) was a campaign of anti-religious persecution against churches and believers by the Soviet government following the initial anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War. The elimination of most religion and its replacement with deism, agnosticism and atheism supported with a materialist world view was a fundamental ideological goal of the state.[1][2] To this end the state conducted anti-religious persecutions against believers that were meant to hurt and destroy religion. It was never made illegal to be a believer or to have religion, and so the activities of this campaign were often veiled under other pretexts (usually resistance to the regime) that the state invoked or invented in order to justify its activities.[3]

        USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941)

        The USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941 was a new phase of anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union following the anti-religious campaign of 1921–1928. The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for a education process on religion in order to further disseminate atheism and materialist philosophy. This had been preceded in 1928 at the fifteenth party congress, where Joseph Stalin criticized the party for failure to produce more active and persuasive anti-religious propaganda. This new phase coincided with the beginning of the mass collectivization of agriculture and the nationalization of the few remaining private enterprises.

        – Wiki

      3. Peter,

        St Mother Teresa was apolitical just like St Pope John Paul II. She was neither socialist, Marxist, Leftwing, Rightwing, Capitalist, Conservative or Liberal. She was fiercely in love with her Spouse, Jesus Christ.

        Read her riveting story “Come Be My Light”. It will melt your heart.

        I posted that comment from a different university medical center in a different state after waking at 4 am and driving several hours. Darren can verify the IP address. While I waited for a colleague to arrive at the hospital, I glanced at Turley’s blog on my iPad. I often post on the fly. I always find St Mother Teresa of Calcutta to be the best response to both abortion and AIDS. I was at the other university collaborating with my peers on studies we are developing on HIV. I have a long and documented history with industry. I helped launch drugs in both cardiology and HIV. Thus I am well suited to tackle this paradigm.

        It was Saint Mother Teresa who opened my eyes to the judgmental, hypocritical, Catholic I once was towards HIV. She opened AIDS houses throughout the USA 30+ years ago. It angered conservatives because she made them uncomfortable. The Archbishop of Miami asked some of us in medicine if we would help direct a new HIV/AIDS Ministry the Archdiocese was starting. The Rector of the Cathedral of St Mary’s approached me since I was a parishioner there at the time and knew what I did for a living. I literally balked and told him politely “no”. But it did not sit well with me. The Rector asked me pointedly a week later after Sunday Mass, “if Mother Teresa can do it, why cant you?” I changed. I met some of these dying HIV patients, and observed that those gay men who talked a good talk about community, left their peers to die alone, particularly those who had infected them, I came to see Christ in them.

        Abortion is evil. So is turning your face away from the dying and the sick. And, by the way, we are all sick

        I don’t like your methods, Peter, but I get what you are doing. I dont approve of TIA’s methods, or anyone else on here. I am neither liberal nor conservative. I try to follow the example of people better than me, knowing I fail miserably. But I keep trying,,,anyways

  13. Thousands and thousands of medical
    Professionals are currently trying to Save
    The Left just want more Abortion Clinics.

    1. “The left just want more Abortion Clinics” ….And the right wants you to be in crowds of people during a deadly virus outbreak.

    2. Pat, let’s see confirmation from a well-known source confirming that ‘thousands of doctors’ are anti-abortion..

      And while you’re at it, show us where the Americsn Medical Association is at on abortion.

      1. Pat, let’s see confirmation from a well-known source confirming that ‘thousands of doctors’ are anti-abortion..

        There are 640,000 physicians and surgeons in the United States. Peter fancies that 99.9% of the support the abortion license.

        1. Absurd, the vast majority of doctors support Patient-Doctor privacy. Doctors cannot be gagged from giving sound medical advice. Female patients deserve truthful evaluations free of political ideology.

          1. that privacy thing is often at odds with public health statistics. we may see HIPAA get its wings clipped once this covid thing is a little longer in the tooth

          2. Absurd, the vast majority of doctors support Patient-Doctor privacy.

            Which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Tell your handlers at Correct-the-Record to send better talking points.

            Doctors cannot be gagged from giving sound medical advice.

            Almost no one procures an abortion consequent to medical advice, Peter. About 0.7% of all pregnancies are ectopic, and a great many of those end in miscarriages.

            1. Absurd, you’re misrepresenting the issue. If a woman really needs an abortion, doctors need to give truthful advice. But the anti-abortion movement clearly wants to gag doctors and politicize the entire field of women’s health.

              ‘Good Christians’ like you want to threaten both doctor and patient with jail time.

              1. Absurd, you’re misrepresenting the issue.

                No, I’m properly representing the issue. I’ve fried your circuits because you take the slogans and memes you peddle seriously.

                If a woman really needs an abortion, doctors need to give truthful advice.

                Whenever you state a need, you have an implicit purpose in mind. Your consulting a physician. Their vocation concerns threats concluding in death and injury, which are very seldom at issue in any individual case where abortion is contemplated. I gave you the numbers above.

                But the anti-abortion movement clearly wants to gag doctors and politicize the entire field of women’s health.

                1. The term ‘politicize’ does not mean what you fancy it means.

                2. Physicians and surgeons are not in the business of giving generic personal advice. They consult on medical questions, which are very seldom at issue in these cases.

                3. Physicians and surgeons should not be complicit in crimes, nor should they commit them. Instigation, conspiracy, attempt, and acting as an accessory to a crime are crimes themselves, and properly prohibited.

  14. Good! I hope it holds up. Maybe The Queen of Abortions, Nancy Pelosi, will have a stroke over it, and lose the power of speech.

    You know, you have to wonder if people like her really believe in Jesus and the whole God thing. I mean, can you imagine Judgement Day, and there she is, standing in front of Jesus and trying to explain why she thought it was spiffy to pop a hole in the head of an 8 months and 3 weeks old baby, about to be delivered. I don’t see Jesus going for the “but it is a woman’s body and she should decide!” ridiculous line. I look for Jesus to tell her that he can read what was on her heart, and she did it for votes and power and money – that she killed babies for votes, power, and money – as he pulls the lever and the malicious old hag goes sliding down the chute to Hell. I do not think that $16 per pint ice cream is available down there. Even to Good Catholics.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeaky we have heard you, in countless comments, condemning Black single mothers for their irresponsible behavior. Yet here you’re using religion to tell us how women have a divine obligation to carry unwanted children. It really crystallizes the basic double-standard of Evangelical conservatives. There’s this mean-spirited desire to punish welfare mothers by cutting-off their benefits. Yet at the same time you want to force those women to carry babies they dont want.

      1. have a divine obligation to carry unwanted children.

        A child isn’t a consumer good, you wanker.

        1. Olly, show the stats from “Abstinence Only” programs. Are they achieving good results?? Most studies I have seen say just the opposite.

          1. show the stats from “Abstinence Only” programs. Are they achieving good results?? Most studies I have seen say just the opposite.

            You want me to show you a study where women not having sex are not getting pregnant and/or not having an abortion? Show me the studies you’re referring to and we’ll analyze the data to find out what’s causing these miraculous pregnancies.

            Ready. Go.

            1. Olly, why bother answering when you clearly have no answer. This illustrates what Book and I were saying about you. You really have no skills as a debater. We never see any real arguements from you. You’re just an old sour apple offering paint-by-number insults to liberals on these threads. That’s all you’re capable of.

              1. why bother answering when you clearly have no answer.

                Huh? Has that debate tactic ever worked? Sorry judge, I’m not going to answer his answer because his answer wasn’t an answer. Your argument hinged on a most studies claim. I asked you to provide the said studies and you chose to lift up your skirt and cry to the judge. Put up or shut up.

                1. All Seth does is insult, ad hominem, ad nauseam

                  He has no arguments just insults, ad hominem, ad nauseam


                    1. Rather, Mr. Warner is the human equivalent to a BSOD (Fittingly apropos, no?)

                  1. And I really do without the mental image of Mr. Warner lifting his skirt. Thank you very much.

                    1. Reliable sources in West Hollywood report Mr Warner does a heckuva job in lifting his skirt drag routines. Lip stick is a bit off though

                    2. REGARDING ABOVE

                      Johnathan Tuey hires rightwing stooges to harass liberal commentators.

    1. Hmmm. Dead babies and erections??? I do not see the tit for tat there. You might as well have asked “What does the Governor say about auto parts?”

      Look, if you believe in abortions, you believe in killing babies. That is monstrous, and you ought to feel a tremendous sense of shame. Because you are a horrible excuse for a human being and simply because you have a lot of company does not make killing babies right. There were a lot of people in Germany who went along with killing Jews, but it did not make it less horrible.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. “if you believe in abortions”

        It was just an honest question Squeek. And it’s kind of odd to follow an “if” statement with an accusation isn’t it?

          1. This is a legal blog Squeek. I have very strong moral views on abortion. That is between me and God — and certainly not the government.

            1. That is hogwash. Laws are the enactments of morality and how people are supposed to behave.

              The Bible says “Thou shalt not steal” and we pass laws to enact that moral pronouncement. Laws against theft, robbery, fraud, shoplifting etc.

              Every law pretty much is morality – even the “Thou shalt not hunt doves over bait!” or “Thou shalt not drive in excess of 10 MPH in a school zone!”

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. It is legal insanity to be using the pandemic for litigation of this issue. The same goes for 2nd amendment rights by the way. And no, it doesn’t follow that I equate guns with babies either.
                Under the current draconian set-up it strikes me that one should get a pretty hefty fine for going to the pharmacy for Viagra. That’s not a trivial legal observation.

        1. PS I also don’t favor strokes or other physical ailments on those with whom I disagree on political issues.

          1. I do not think that killing babies is just a “political” issue. Was “killing Jews” in Nazi Germany just a a political issue? Did we hang some of the monsters because of a political disagreement?

            I think we hung them for being monsters who committed crimes against humanity.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Squeek, Clausewitz said “war is the extension of politics by other means”

              so per his theory, yes, both the laws against Jews, and the Nuremberg tribunal that followed, were both acts of politics

              I am fairly certain that was Carl Schmitt’s opinion too, elaborated indirectly in his last book on international law, “Nomos of the Earth”

        2. If you favor abortion “rights”, then you favor dead babies. That is pretty simple. You are just one of those trying to skirt around the issue of killing babies with blather. You are a horrible person and a monster, just sort of sneaky about it. Like Adolf Eichmann. You know, just following orders and such! You are just following Roe v. Wade, you know. Nothing to see here. Just ignore the dead babies on your way out. Ta Ta! Have a nice day.


          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. I favor abortion rights. I don’t favor either abortions or dead babies.

            You just wished a stroke on a fellow citizen who you don;t agree with. GFY.

        3. I favor abortion rights for women. I don’t favor abortions or killing babies.

          Huh? The best interpretation of those two positions is; you personally don’t favor abortions/killing of babies, but you favor a woman having the right to abort/kill a baby. What is the limit of your principles where you will not accept laws that violate them? What other infringements of our right to life, liberty and property are you in favor of generally, but not personally?

          1. Olly, I don’t support killing any babies, though I do support abortion rights. I don’t get the rest of your question unless you are saying a non-viable fetus is a citizen. I don’t agree.

            1. You don’t get to do that. Abortion rights means but one thing – killing babies. Period. It is not like believing in Second Amendment rights. There, there are multiple outcomes and possibilities:

              1. Self defense
              2. Hunting
              3. Defense of others
              4. Fighting off foreign invaders
              5. Overthrowing a tyrannical government
              6. A feeling of security and safety
              7. A belief that being armed is a deterrent to criminals

              And even when guns are used, most of the people shot are not killed.

              But if you believe in Abortion Rights, there is pretty much just one outcome – dead babies. Darn near every time that “right” is used, a baby dies. Period.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. Not only do we not agree, I don’t take moral lectures from people wishing debilitating illness on other people they don’t agree with.

                1. If you believe in killing babies, then you are obviously not taking moral lectures from anyone. You are a monster. And a horrible person. I am amazed by the sheer hubris of people who are all for killing babies attempting to claim the moral high ground.

                  Just unbelievable. I guess you are like that “good Catholic” Nancy Pelosi – just totally clueless about how evil you are.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

            2. I don’t get the rest of your question unless you are saying a non-viable fetus is a citizen.

              Not what I said. My question was very clear and your are merely dodging the basic question on what rights you support infringing generally but not personally.

              By the way, viability of human life is a very subjective measure. If you empower the state to establish a legal precedent that they shall permit the killing of what they define as a non-viable human life, then you’ve empowered them to redefine what viable means. Currently, the acceptable legal age of viability is somewhere between 24 and 28 weeks. Now that the state has been given the power over what human life is permitted protection, viability could just as easily be redefined as that age that is independent from others. Would never happen, right?

              After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

              1. No Olly, you are saying a non-viable fetus is a citizen. I don’t agree and neither does the law.

                1. No btb, I haven’t said that at all. Our natural right to Life preexists national identity and common law. A fetus is human life…period. Either we commit to securing the right to life, or we descend down the slope of empowering government to establish laws that infringe on that natural right. As you well know, we have descended well beyond that 1973 intent.

                  1. Olly

                    Gainesville just played the worst card possible in the pro-abort deck

                    “viable”…. is the dumbest stupidest idiotic argument these mongrels make and with good reason NARAL and Planned Barrenhood dropped it eons ago. No one who is taken to a trauma center is viable. If not for taking them they would be dead

                    CNNLOL agrees

                    1. No one who is taken to a trauma center is viable. If not for taking them they would be dead

                      Exactly correct. No human ever born is viable until they develop the capacity for independent sustainability.

                    1. we have no rights not agreed to by other humans.

                      Thank you for that pre-enlightment regression. Get back to me after you look up the definition of positive and negative rights.

                      The proof is in our history.

                      True. But you’re failing to look at all available history to forward your argument. The list of grievances detailed in the DoI for instance, are evidence (proof) that just because humans won’t always agree on rights, it’s self-evident that some rights should not be subject to human agreement, are considered to be natural and should be secured. Therefore, the purpose of government is to secure these negative rights, not unconstitutionally discover positive rights to violate them.

                    2. Olly, for better or worse, humans are the only beings WGF about our rights – and many other things. If we mostly all realize that fact we might stand a better chance of enforcing them by majority rule, not by waiting for divine intervention. In fact, the number of people living in democracies is at it’s greatest number now and world sensibilities are at a much higher civilized level, i.e., based on human values, than previously. Consider the worldwide revulsion at ISIS be-headings. That was SOP for post Jesus European monarchs not that long ago. There are many fewer slaves per capita and the institution has virtually no ideological support left. These are improvements we’d be wise to consider as such and ask how that happened. Like creating God(s), we did it and we can do better.

                    3. for better or worse, humans are the only beings WGF about our rights – and many other things.

                      And the Enlightenment Era identified how our behavior towards those rights is different than every other being. Security of our inalienable rights are not to be subjected to the rule of kings or the majority. That was what enlightenment taught us about human nature. Now we’ve regressed back to the unenlightened theory that human nature itself has evolved and we should trust in the state and/or the majority to not infringe those rights.

                    4. Olly, we did that Enlightenment. We’re doing today’s governments which are better. There are virtually no king’s left. Let’s keep it that way. Our rights are alienable unless we insist on them. Spread the word.

                    5. we did that Enlightenment. We’re doing today’s governments which are better… Our rights are alienable unless we insist on them.

                      Enlightenment brought us unalienable rights and the legitimacy of government to secure them. 244 years later, you are back to believing all rights are alienable as determined by government. You’ve regressed. Instead of the divine rule of kings, you believe in the divine rule of government. Prove me wrong..

                    6. The Communists in China ended chattel slavery once they consolidated control over the PRC, and yet they made out of the entire Chinese people, slaves of the CCP.

                      I wonder sometimes if they can really claim a lot of credit for much beyond ending the cruel and stupid practice of foot binding. That may have been their highest moment. All downhill from there, perhaps?

                    7. Monday was Hitler’s birthday.
                      Tuesday was Queen Elizabeth II’s.

                      God save the Queen!

                    8. Olly, the heart of the Enlightenment was reason and science, not God, though some retained that belief.

                    9. Not God.

                      I’m not arguing a case for God. I’m arguing a case for natural rights. These are rights that exist because we exist; however we believe we came into existence. And since we existed before any form of government existed, these are not rights that come from government and that cannot legitimately be taken away by government.

                    10. Olly, the heart of the Enlightenment was reason and science, not God, though some retained that belief.

                      Both reason and science antedated Voltaire, and he advanced neither.

                    11. The Enlightenment was a political movement as much as anything. Freemasonry supplied the cadres and the urban poor supplied the cannon fodder.

                      There were redeeming aspects of course, but don’t imagine for a second that the political upheavals like the French Revolution, the Russian, or the American revolution, for that matter, were just idealistic “movements.

                      They were all wars and lead by men of flesh, blood, and ambition, and driven by a desire for gold as much as any king who came before them.

            3. Anon – you cannot support abortion rights without supporting killing babies. Full stop.

        4. if society can be viewed not only as a contest between individuals but as between competing factions, some of which may be tribes, or larger sets of ancestrally related people, than some people who are tuned into their group interests in this demographic contest, will favor contraception and feticide, er, cough, sorry, I mean abortion– for other groups.

          now since they can’t be delimited by “groups” the smart thing for such “group interest strategists” is to look and see how and under what conditions the various “groups” will utilize these abortion services. then, consider a cost benefit analysis of what conditions will favor the desired outcomes.

          I am pretty sure Margaret Sanger had this figured out a long time ago.

          I know it’s very un-Christian of me to think this way but maybe there’s a silver lining in the pro-abort fanaticism after all?

          some things make a lot more sense when you measure people by the effects they obtain, rather than what comes out of their mouths

  15. The pro “life“, pro gun, pro infection Republican Party is on a roll. God help us all.

    1. 2nd amendment rights are on hold in a lot of states. There’s plenty of pandemic abuse to go around.

  16. Its considered essential in Michigan. Looks like certain groups of people all have their favorite essential and non-essential products. Best not to use government for their pet projects.

  17. Shocking. Thanks for alerting us to the fact religiously confused, domineering middle aged men are dedicated to sabotaging the lives of women everywhere and no stinkin’ pandemic should be able to stop them!!…

    I forget which part of the bible talks of capitalizing on plague?

    1. It’s amusing (up to a point) to encounter people who think in slogans and tropes.

      1. I know. Your sentence above being case in point A. Attack the messenger rather than the message. Wow, now there’s something that isn’t cliche.

        Just because something is true doesn’t make it a trope.

        1. Uh, women sabotage their own lives when they get pregnant, unless it was rape. Which, most of the time it isn’t. It is bimbos sleeping with their bosses, or tramps having sex while drunk or high on drugs, or just plain irresponsible chippies having sex with some loser.

          There are ways to have sex without getting pregnant, and abortion just keeps men and women from having to grow up and act like adults.

          What kind of a demon believes in killing babies as an alternative? I wish General Patton was here to make you walk thru an abortion clinic and see all the dead baby parts and make you clean it up like he did those Germans who lived near concentration camps.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Well, I grew up with a mom who worked in a hospital in Ohio pre Roe vs. Wade when staff would raise their own money to send a woman entering their radar screen to NY for a safe abortion because they knew if they didn’t she’d probably be back with a raging infection later on. So there’s that.

            Not that I don’t agree with their being ways not to get pregnant. Aptly demonstrated in all the porn you clearly watch. And besides, it’s always easy to toss a liquored up goon off of you before orgasm, right? Bad, bad women for not training up on that!!!

            1. Blah blah blah, you are a monster who thinks it spiffy to kill babies. If your Mom and her friends had any decency, they would told the girl to grow the F up, and have her baby. To put her big girl panties on.

              And I am quite fine with a woman having a raging infection as opposed to killing a baby.

              You are a person who believes in killing babies, and that makes you a monster and a horrible excuse for a human being.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

                1. Anonymous – Squeeky is an excellent poet. We have not seen any samples of your work. Think you can do better?

                    1. Anonymous – then for the next five poems, match Squeeky poem for poem.

          2. What kind of demon indeed. Ghengis Khan was the biggest murderer in history sacked many cities and slew them all including babies.

            But today they say 16 millions are descended from him, at least. Apparently he intended to repopulate what he erased, and he did.


            slaughtering babies was in his deck of cards and it was in the tool kit of God Himself if you credit the Hebrew Scriptures

            remember Exodus? 12:29:

            At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.

            Nor forget Jerhico

            Joshua 6:21 ” And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”

            What kind of demon, this? Great question. I’m sure you can find all kinds of theological justifications for this but maybe it all just goes back to the core reality of human existence, which is struggle, beginning to end.

            1. Kurtz, human existence is struggle from beginning to end for some, and worse. For others, except for the eventually dying part, not so bad. For most of us we struggle and are comforted and rewarded by other humans, and as a species we came, we saw, we have conquered. We didn’t do it by not cooperating and as Yuval Harari lays out in his book Sapien, what distinguishes us as social animals – like chimps – is our ability to form larger and larger social organizations based on abstractions like kin, country, religion, etc. Chimps only get as big as those they know physically. We are currently in a world civilization more joined than ever, but also with nations/factions within it. For the last 75 years we have mostly played nice with others, partly because we realize we can’t afford the repercussions of another WW. It is partly due also to a liberalizing of values , including democracy and humanism.

              It is possible if not inevitable that we are smart enough to not blow ourselves up, but only if we work at it and don’t succumb to the pessimistic defeatism which you seem to be selling.

              1. Im sure you and Yuval both know that chimps have wars too.. its just social resource competition, evolutionary psychology, like what that other guy who was interviewed same time, that’s his field


                Yuval Harari is an Israeli and they embrace a lot of these ironies. The have an interesting society which combines aspects of modern liberal secularism with an identity that is immersed in those old Hebrew Scriptures. The mental power of the Jewish people, their will, is tremendous, fascinating, and in their tiny nation state on the shores of the Mediterranean they have carved out an interesting nation state, but their dreams remain firmly entrenched against the dirty realities of that place which in some ways has not changed much for thousands of years.

                he is a liberal I am sure you would agree. there is an aspect of Jewish secular atheistic liberalism which emerges from the mental habits of Judaism, one of which is “tikkun olam,” to remake the world. They have a lot of dreams for the future. In this way both Freud and Marx, secular Jews, were prototypes of the modern Jewish people’s leadership. one, immersed in pondering over the sexual aspects of dreams, and the other, immersed in some dreams about how the world “should be” rather than how it is. Marx, how different than Saul of Tarsus, and yet how similar!

                I heard someone say once that in the place of a God that they no longer believe in, they have elevated the other partner in their covenant to take his place– ie, themselves. And Harari’s book is entitled what? Homo Deus

                I find it fascinating that the Jewish people continue to exist, as a people, emergent from the blood and guts and faith of the Hebrew religion, even though it’s a good question how many still believe in it or not! And while they are the champions of universal humanisms, they still seem to have no trouble in Israel resorting to the brutal methods that characterized their conquest of Canaan in the first place. I’m sure I am not the first to see these ironies and mention them. I run the risk of being called an antisemite for saying them, but that doesn’t stop my Jewish friends from wanting to talk to me about such things anyways!

                Homo Deus book, I’ve added it to my reading list but right now Im bogged down in finishing “Unrestricted Warfare” by a couple of Chicom PLC colonels.

                I am a gentile but my interior conformation is perhaps more like a religious Jew than a secular one, who has more nightmares of the future than dreams of it. But like them i draw a certain energy from it,

                I’m not a defeatist and not a pessimist. I am invigorated by what other people believe are “negative things.” I look at the dark side of existence, if you will, and it gives me insight, clarity, energy, and power, to embrace the ironies and complexities of existence, to thrive and keep on living. That won’t last forever I know, which is what is meant by time– the certainty of one’s own death. Keep it before me at all times like a cup of pencils on my desk, next to the clock, never forgotten.

                1. I like your last metaphor!

                  I think Yuval’s nationality is not the most important thing about him, nor does he try to speak for Jews or Israel. By the way, Sapiens is considered his more important book I think. I read Homo Deus and found it very interesting but was not overwhelmed and I think he set up many strawmen to knock over. You may be surprised by his antagonism towards humanism. He is worried by our success and that is a valid point of view. One imagines he would be worried no matter what.

                  Yes, chimps do battle. We’re trying to leave that behind as much as possible. That is called civilization.

    2. Anonymous……Which part of the Bible talks of capitalizing on plagues, you ask?
      That would be the Book of Exodus. God sent the plagues to wear down the Pharoah, so that he would let God’s chosen people, the Jews, leave and go to Promised Land.
      You’re welcome.

        1. Thought this was a cool little summary of the first part of the Book of Exodus. Totally shows how easy it is to confuse “god” and the “pharoah” within the realm of polarized duality.

          1. Yes cindy instructions but He gave them only to his own chosen tribe, not the Egyptians.
            The innocent Egyptian firstborns, slaughtered in their cradles by the Angel of Death. They killed the firstborn livestock too just for good measure.

            Roll that over in your head, imagine you were an Egyptian parent looking at your cold dead child in the cradle.

            The Bible says God did that. Really? And here we are worrying about abortions which occur outside our own households. Well, hmm, that one night we remember as the Jewish Passover, God was busy with a lot of post-natal abortions, or so the story goes. But they were among the bad guys, so, that is today remembered as a “miracle!”

            Strong stuff! I’ll leave it to theologians to “spin” this one. I remember once I asked a priest about Jerhico and he just smirked at me like I was asking a smart alecky question. Some priests are better with tough questions than others I guess.

            The Old Testament is full of that kind of stuff. Well, I’ll stop myself before I swerve into the heresy of Marcionism.

            1. Mr Kurtz – Pharoah was god, too. The duel between Moses and Pharoah is a duel between gods.

Leave a Reply