Below is my column in The Hill on a shift in the rhetoric in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. From politicians to pundits, pro-life positions are being treated as virtual hate speech. The demonization of those with pro-life views is meant to cut off any debate on the basis or scope of abortion rights. It is the latest attack on free speech as critics seek to silence those with opposing views.
Here is the column:
With the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade, it is no longer enough to be pro-choice. Indeed, the term “pro-choice” has been declared harmful by the now ironically named “Pro-Choice Caucus.” Today, it seems you must be anti-pro-life to be truly pro-choice — and, across the country, pro-life viewpoints are being declared virtual hate speech.
We have seen this pattern before.
With the rise of the racial justice movement on campuses across the country in 2020, a mantra emerged that it was no longer enough to not be a racist, you must be anti-racist. As National Public Radio’s media critic explained, “you’ve got to be continually working towards equality for all races, striving to undo racism in your mind, your personal environment and the wider world.”
Similarly, after the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it seems, you must be anti-pro-life and stop others from voicing their views.
On Sunday, almost half of the University of Michigan’s incoming medical school class walked out of a “White Coat Ceremony” to protest keynote speaker Dr. Kristin Collier. Collier was not planning to discuss abortion, but — because she holds pro-life views — students launched an unsuccessful campaign to block her from speaking.
The cancel-campaign petition had the usual nod to free speech before calling for it to be gutted. According to the Michigan Daily, the petition — signed by hundreds of incoming, current and past students — declared that “while we support the rights of freedom of speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker as a representative of the University of Michigan undermines the University’s position on abortion and supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access, an essential part of medical care.” In other words: We support a diversity of viewpoints so long as we don’t have to hear any opposing views.
Ironically, until four years ago, Collier was “a pro-choice atheist” who admitted that she had “great animosity towards those who held either pro-life views or deeply held religious commitments.” When she held those views, she was a celebrated professor with a long line of publications in peer-reviewed journals. She then had a conversion on the issue after speaking with a senior faculty colleague, Dr. William Chavey, a professor of family medicine who was pro-life — and she quickly became persona non grata.
She is not alone at the university. A week earlier, a campaign was launched to fire football head coach Jim Harbaugh after he declared, “I believe in having the courage to let the unborn be born.”
Harbaugh is accustomed to penalty calls for unnecessary roughness on the field, but nothing likely prepared him for what came next. While he is widely known to be a devout Catholic, his public statement of his values was considered an outrage by some and made his continuation as coach unacceptable to them, even though he just signed a five-year, $36.7 million contract.
In addition to calls for his termination, Harbaugh was accused of being “full of deep seething hatred of women” and “publicly expressing his distaste for women’s rights.” The liberal Palmer Report posted (with thousands of “likes”) that “no one who actively attempts to deny women their most basic rights should ever be allowed to hold a position of influence at a public university … He’s a public employee. Fire his ass.”
Actually, being a public employee is one reason Harbaugh was not fired. As a public university, Michigan is subject to the full weight of the First Amendment.
Many others are not protected like Harbaugh, however. Some pro-life workers face long, hard fights against companies eager to satisfy pro-choice advocates. In 2017, Charlene Carter, a former Southwest Airlines flight attendant, was fired for posting criticism of the Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) and its president, Audrey Stone, for their pro-choice positions. Southwest allegedly told Carter that Stone and the union contacted the company and cited her comments as threatening or harassing; Southwest then fired her. Five years later, this month, she was awarded more than $5 million for her wrongful termination.
There is an obvious effort to portray pro-life views as inherently threatening, making most any countermeasures justified. Recently, some pro-life centers and churches have been attacked. Even some crisis pregnancy centers, offering support to pregnant women and alternatives to abortion, have been denounced as a threat to women. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has declared that “crisis pregnancy centers … are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help. … We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts, and we need to shut them down all around the country. You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that.”
Sen. Warren, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and other Democrats in Congress have sponsored a bill that would shut such centers and hit charities with fines of $100,000 or “50 percent of the revenues earned by the ultimate parent entity” for violating the act’s “prohibition on disinformation” related to abortion.
Similar crackdowns are being pushed by some Democratic governors. Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) vetoed $20 million in funding for groups and advertising offering non-abortion resources and counseling. Such counseling efforts were denounced as “deceptive” attempts to “prey” on women.
While some activists have previously argued that pro-life views or advertisements like “abortion hurts women” constitute “hate speech,” the Supreme Court has refused to allow such laws as the Ku Klux Klan Act to be used against abortion protesters as being motivated by a “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.”
Demonizing pro-life viewpoints avoids the need to deal with abortion’s details. While a majority today support Roe, an even greater number support limits on abortion. A recent poll conducted by Harvard found that 72 percent of Americans would allow abortion only until the 15th week of pregnancy or support an even more restrictive law. That view transcends party affiliation; even 60 percent of Democrats believe abortion should be prohibited after the 15th week or a more restrictive limit.
Yet, clearly, some do not want to have a debate of the issue while pushing virtually absolute rights to abortion. It is far easier to attack those who voice pro-life views as monolithic, “theology-rooted” extremists. One benefit in being anti-pro-life is that you can be anti-free-speech — all in the name of being pro-choice.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
258 thoughts on “Is Pro-Life Now Hate Speech?”
Jonathan: So now we’re into word games? You say “pro-life positions are being treated as virtual hate speech” and an attack on “free speech” and “it seems you must be anti-pro-life to be truly pro-choice”. A lot of terms to digest but I’ll try. The recommendation by the Pro Choice Caucus in the House may seem non-sensical at first blush but it does make perfect sense. In the post-Wade world we now live in, in case you missed the memo, almost half the women no longer have a “choice”. Their “choice” of whether to have an abortion has been taken away. They do have a Hobson’s choice. They can choose to take the fetus to term or they can choose to travel to another state where the full range of medical benefits is still provided. Not much of a real “choice” you have to admit. We now live in states that are either “pro-abortion” or “anti-abortion”. I think these terms more accurately describes the world we now live in.
Now you misleadingly try to compare the terms “anti-racist” and “anti-pro-life”. For a long time we have adopted terms to describe opposing camps. During the Civil War there were the “abolitionists” and the people who were “pro-slavery”. Those who were in the latter group tried to change the subject. It wasn’t about slavery, it was about “state rights”. But no one was fooled. During WWII if you were against the Axis powers you were “ant-fascist” or “anti-Nazi”. No argument back then over the terms. Then came the civil rights movement and the fight over the rights of Black people. Those who favored the status quo in the south and elsewhere were labeled “racist”. Unfortunately, we still have quite a few of them even today. Many white people claim: “I’m not a racist”. But they live in de facto segregated neighborhoods, there children go to de facto segregated schools and they have few if any Black friends. They don’t use the “N” word but act out their lives with racist assumptions–some obvious and some not so obvious. That’s what prompted the CRT theory to develop that tried to explore all the ingrained racist aspects of our society. A lot of white people feel “uncomfortable” in discussing race. That’s why the teaching of anything about “race” is now prohibited in many school districts–especially in the South. White parents don’t want their children to feel “uncomfortable” by discussing race in school. Today we use the term “anti-racist” to refer to those who have come to recognize all the various forms of racism and are trying to excise it from the culture and the body politic. Today it’s no longer acceptable to say “I’m not a racist”. You have to live it every day in your actions–not just your words. But back to your column.
Those in the camp who favored abortion (pre-Dobbs) referred to themselves as “pro-choice” because the term made sense at the time. Roe made abortion legal in all states. Today, at the end of July, abortion is banned in almost half the states. In those states being “pro-choice” is a non-sensical term. So in the state in which I reside I no longer use the term “pro-choice” because abortion is now banned. I now use the term “pro-abortion” to describe myself. If I lived in California we wouldn’t be having this discussion because women there enjoy the full panoply of medical rights–including abortion. We have a friend who has a bright 22 yr old daughter who is attending Texas A & M. She is transferring to a school in California. Texas’ loss will be California’s gain. The Pro Choice Caucus is merely recognizing reality by deleting the term “pro-choice”. But you derisively call the “pro-abortion” group “anti-pro-life”. For a long time those who opposed abortion have called themselves “pro-life”. Has a nice ring to it. Who is against “life”? The reality is that those who oppose abortion are anti-women. They want women to go back to a time when women had no rights and were forced to bear all the children men wanted or needed. So the anti-abortion group came up with a religious justification. God created humans in his image and since life begins at conception God says abortion is the “murder” of a unborn child. Ergo, abortion must be against the law–God’s law and, to enforce the law on earth, in the civil law as well. It’s a narrow bigoted religious dogma that disregards the religious rights of others–like Jews and Muslims. But that is a discussion for another day.
If abortion was really about protecting “life” we should see better pre and post-natal care in the states that have banned abortion. In fact the reverse is true. In Mississippi, which brought the case overturning Roe, state GOP leaders have rejected Medicaid coverage for poor women who get pregnant. They are mostly Black and Brown. Racism is part of the equation. The state’s infant and maternal death rates are among the highest in the country. Mississippi’s welfare system is one of country’s least generous–a max of $260 a month for mothers trying to raise a child. This same pattern is repeated in the states with “trigger” laws. None of these states guarantee parents paid leave from work to care for a newborn. Won’t find this deplorable situation in most European states that actually put into practice taking care of “life”. No, the anti-abortion groups are not about protecting “life” but controlling women’s bodies. Otherwise, we would expect to see GOP legislators falling all over themselves passing new legislation to protect and care for the lives of the newborn. The fact we don’t see this speaks volumes about the true agenda of the anti-abortion movement.
So it disingenuous for you to say those who are pro-abortion are “anti-pro-life”. “Pro-life’ has nothing to do with what is going on in the states that have banned abortion. It’s an “anti-woman” war that is taking place. You have gaslighted your readers again but some of us aren’t buying it! Karen, are you paying close attention?
“almost half the women no longer have a “choice”. Their “choice” of whether to have an abortion has been taken away. “
What you are saying is completely wrong. Choice exists. You don’t like it packaged in green. You wanted blue.
Anonymous: As usual you don’t know what you are talking about. “Choice exists”? In what universe are you living? Does “choice” exist in Mississippi or Missouri for women who want an abortion? Not now as a result of the Dobbs decision. I suppose a pregnant woman has the “choice” to go to a state where abortion is still accessible. But that’s not financial feasible for poor women. If women can’t get an abortion in the state where they reside what realistic “choice” do they have? Of course, women also have the “choice” not to have sex. It’s often expressed in cruder terms. Is that the “choice” you have in mind? But do 10 yr old girls who are raped have that choice? I feel sorry for the women in your life–if you have any.
Does “choice” exist in Mississippi or Missouri for women who want an abortion?
The have a choice to choose abortion. For 15 weeks.
A woman has a menstrual cycle every 28 days, miss that cycle twice (8 weeks), due diligence requires looking into why. Still lots of times for choice.
” Does “choice” exist in Mississippi or Missouri for women who want an abortion? Not now as a result of the Dobbs decision. “
Yes. Not having an abortion clinic within walking distance for those without a car still permits choice. The burden is not overwhelming, but you want to make it so. That is an asinine way of thinking.
“But that’s not financial feasible for poor women.”
Somehow we see these same people eating and doing other things. Some don’t even want to work. Travel is not that expensive. You are making the law meet the needs of the exceptions. That is foolish as laws invariably benefit most and can hurt others. Few laws don’t cause some problems for the outliers. Your type of thinking is a leftist habit and is why leftists should not be involved in policy. The outliers suddenly disappear when the policy is desired by the left.
You end with an insult. “women in your life–if you have any.”
The women in my life are treated as partners, and all have worked in fields formerly not open to women. My wife worked in a job that was almost exclusively male. She was shown around the workspace, most of one floor of a skyscraper with a huge number of workers and cubby holes. She placed her things in one of the cubby holes while she was walking around, and the guy occupying the cubby hole next to it said, “you must be the token woman replacing the token Jew that just left.’ She looked him straight in the eye and said, I am that token woman you refer to, and I am also a token Jew. I am your boss. They are painting and dressing up the large corner office over there along with a seperate conference room is my office.
She knows how a woman or a man should be treated. You lack such abilities.
We always have choices. When those choices are not legal, we can break the law, follow the law or change the law.
People choose to murder their neighbors – and they go to jail for that. choice.
Your post does an excellent job of proving the problems with your own ideology.
With respect to words.
The meaning of words is ultimately determined by humans and the way they are used.
But words and their meanings are critically important – that is how we communicate, and for most of us how we think.
Mangle the meaning of words and it harms our ability to think and to communicate.
Fascism was the synthesis of socialism and nationalism. That is how those who created the term defined it.
You are free to redefine fascism however you please – but doing so will falsely distort our understanding of major historical events.
And that is typically the point of those – left and right that seek to mangle words.
You correctly note that those advocating for states rights were sometimes also racists.
But that was not close to uniformly true, nor close to exclusively true.
Woodrow Wilson the founder of the federal administrative state – as strong an opponent of states rights as you possibly could get, purged the federal civil service of blacks, brought the KKK into the whitehouse and was possibly one of the most racist US presidents – certainly the most racist of the 20th century. Conversely Coolidge who followed him was just about the strongest opponent of federal power. Coolidge had the first and only native american vice president.
Put simply – your reframing of words clearly distorts history.
But more importantly it distorts thought and communication.
If a white person today said the same things as Martin Luther King – YOU and most of the left would label them a racist.
I am a landlord – most of my tenants have been hispanic, the next largest group have been black, most of the whites have been “crackers”.
You say that whites who live in communities that have few minorities are inherently racist – the most racist people I know are whites that live right on top of blacks.
Again your distortion of language mis-reprensents reality and distorts our thought.
Though “pro-life” encompasses a variety of groups with different positions on many issues, the core to the “pro-life” movement is Catholics
who have been pro-life for generations before Roe. From the moment medicine was faced with the choice between the life of a fetus and that of the mother – the Catholic church has chosen they life of the fetus over that of the mother. These same pro-life Catholics also vigorously oppose the death penalty. Regardless of your spin – the pro-life movement predates the pro-choice movement by generations, and is inherently pro-life.
Mangling words as you are wont – would again distort history. We would misperceive our past if we adopted your prefered meaning.
Nor is this the limits of the problems with politically driven word mangling.
1984 provides the perfect exposition for another problem.
Not only does playing games with defintions distort the past,
It also distorts thoughts. The modern left – just as the tyrants in 1984 seek to deprive us of the words to express dissent from their values.
What we can not express we can not think.
The left’s definition of racism makes all other forms of racism inexpressible and inconceivable – even though they are real.
Control language and you control history, you control perception, you control thought. you control everything.
Common english has about 80,000 words – technical language – which often is language independent raises that of over 250,000
No other language has the number of words that english does. And that alone is why it will likely be the 2nd language for the entire world for a long long time to come. English is not a particularly elegant language. It is not a language anyone would have designed deliberately.
It is a mess. but it has the greatest power to express the broadest array of thoughts, ideas, perceptions of any other language.
The eskimo’s may have a dozen different words for snow – but it is unlikely they have more than 5000 words total. They can communicate about snow better than any other group. But they can not jump from snow to philosophy to love, to astronomy, to politics with near equal ability to express.
That power of expression – and communications comes from the number of words, and the existance of 80,000 common words is specifically to be able to communicate and perceive and think about things in the most clear and precise way possible.
Efforts to deliberately alter the meaning of words are efforts to distort communication, perception and thinking – and they are done for political reasons.
We are living in Orwell’s prediction.
As the Former British Economist & Mathematician said just before he passed away was:
“The Answer to 1984 is 1776.”
But he was an oddball as he still had both hands! 😉
The activists are afraid of a fair debate and especially afraid of someone who once shared their values and through a fact-based process has reached another conclusion.
I was curious of this statement, “…undermines the University’s position on abortion.”
Why would a university take a position on abortion? I spent many years in academic institutions and never once encountered or was aware that the university took an official position on politics or religion. That is bizarre!
Those in the student group who left in mass and who mindlessly follow the group deprive themselves of a diverse and liberal education.
They, in fact, embraced dogmatic color judgments and class-based bigotry (i.e. diversity), and a religious (i.e. behavioral protocol) philosophy of divergence (i.e. liberalism) handed down by mortal gods and goddesses, experts of both sexes.
I understood the column to say that the statement to the effect that the university had taken a position on the abortion issue was included in the petition signed by students. I’m not sure that the petition did, in fact, reflect an official position of the university.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
– Edmund Burke
America must be approaching its demise.
A well-known radio psychologist back in the 1990’s had a young woman on the phone talking about her pregnancy.
The caller said “and then when I found out I was pregnant……”
and the radio host stopped her and said something like ‘when you chose to spread your legs and have unprotected sex with your boyfriend’
The caller was shocked at the bluntness —- the rest of the call was pretty boring.
The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral.”
More Americans die than are born.
America is succumbing to invasion and conquest; it is committing national suicide.
Russia and China are executing their opening volleys.
American freedom has given over to communist enslavement.
Hysteria and incoherence reign.
At what point does rationality awaken to recoup imperium in extremis?
Here’s a take on the Issue:
COOK: Philosophy scholars are wrong about abortion
A woman (by Nature), and man (by Nature), have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution, final solution, is neither a good nor exclusive choice. The Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities.
Human rights threaten the wicked solution, performance of human rites for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes. Don’t harsh my mellow, madam, girl.
That said, keep women affordable, available, and taxable. Rape… rape-rape of ten year-old girls happens in darkness.
Women, men, and “our Posterity” are from Earth. Feminists are from Venus. Masculinists are from Mars. Social progressives are from Uranus.
The debate about abortion has been high-jacked by individual rights activists, saying that the individual supporting an unborn human has a right to end that unborn existence. In some parlance that could be considered murder. These two incidences being polar and recognizably untenable have to come to some accord about when does life begin, without reconciliation on this primary or should I say Singular issue, and codifying it into law, turmoil will persist, just as today’s subject matter demonstrates.
It may surprise most of you to learn but in a white coat ceremony there is a good portion of those students who are not science majors. They could be literature , political science , engineering, and etc. In an effort to introduce a more balanced student, medical schools have been selectively adding people with different backgrounds, ages, and education to the medical rolls. The Hippocratic oath currently has turned into something you have to pledge in order to graduate.Medicine offers a life based on knowledge, skill, and service to the critical needs of each patient, however in today’s climate a business model has emerged putting the needs of your patient subservient to ones opinion. Many of Today’s younger students ( of all university branches) seem to lack empathy and critical thinking. So am I surprised that a white coat ceremony would have a bunch of protesters, not really. Just remember out of all the White coat ceremonies in United States this is the only one that garnered any attention. It’s so sad that the word compromise has just about disappeared from our daily conversation language.
Every advocate of abortion in the last trimester should be forced to assist in performing such an abortion. Forced to wield the scissors and forceps. Forced to pull out the mutilated corpse. If these advocates could not stomach participation, they should not fan-boy it.
This was my epiphany on the death penalty many years ago. I would be unwilling to endanger my soul by ending someone’s life when there was no immediate danger. Thus, I cannot expect someone else to do so on my behalf.
Please stop equating killing a third trimester baby with killing a man that has murdered others. The man that you are so fearful of giving the death penalty actually gave someone else, usually more than one person) their own version f the death penalty.
There is no moral equivalence between elective abortion and the death penalty. The issues with the latter are evidentiary fidelity and prosecutorial discretion.
As long as you sit back and allow the bullies to push, they push.
I read this article this morning and if true, it would or should put an end to the climate “emergency” agenda.
Climate alarmists play the “hide the magnitude” game. If they didn’t, they would soon be out of business.
Politely ask a few of your friends how much of the air they’re breathing is CO2. I’ve done that, and the typical answer, when I can get one, is twenty percent or more. (Most people have no idea and would rather not guess.)
Climate alarmists rarely talk about the actual quantitative composition of our atmosphere. The impression they give is that (1) a substantial part of the air that surrounds us comprises carbon dioxide; (2) that the proportion of carbon dioxide is increasing rapidly; (3) that the increase is primarily the result of human activity, mostly from burning fossil fuels; and (4) that if CO2 continues to increase, it’s game over for humanity. Recently, the rhetoric has escalated from “climate crisis” to “climate emergency.”
The actual magnitude tells a very different story. Carbon dioxide constitutes four one-hundredths of one percent of the air we breathe (or 400 parts per million). That is an extremely tiny fraction of the atmosphere.
What does the above toy have to do with climate change? It is a sealed vessel which requires no food or water. The animal and plant life live without interference except for the energy supplied by a light. We can surmise that if we could add a tiny bit of CO2 the plant life would get bigger while if we took out a tiny bit of C02 the plant life would shrink. C02 is plant food.
if we could add a tiny bit of CO2 the plant life would get bigger
The greenhouse effect, which should not to be confused with the theoretical radiative Greenhouse effect that was characterized in isolation and probable net-zero effect in the wild.
I think I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure it will be clear to all.
My post was to help some people conceptualize what actually happens. Nature has a lot of self correcting mechanisms. If it didn’t the world would be a more fragile place. The same occurs in the human body as well as in all other living creatures. We all recognize that we breathe out CO2 that plants use while producing oxygen.
Nature has a lot of self correcting mechanisms.
It certainly does. You’re making a rational point. The article I cited detailed some facts I hadn’t heard or read before. If I had, they certainly didn’t register. The conclusion of the article was telling. With all the pain and suffering we are currently being forced to endure for this green energy transition, the climate change alarmists should be forced to answer these fundamental questions.
If the tiny magnitude were more generally known, people would want explanations. It defies common sense that such a small magnitude could be responsible for certain catastrophic changes. The least we ought to be is skeptical.
The catastrophists have not been asked to explain because they have successfully suppressed widespread awareness of the magnitude of CO2 in the atmosphere. If more people were aware of the actual percentage, there would be far less global warming panic. More people would stop listening to the doomsayers.
Olly, et al:
ark Levin Audio Rewind – 7/28/22
Right click and do “save link as”
On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show, the country is now in a recession and stagflation is soon to follow. President Biden will blame big oil and big meat for shortages, not his business-stifling policies. While the White House will say that we’re not in a recession, what we are in is defined as a recession by every other economist not working in the Administration. Then, former federal prosecutor and acting Pentagon Chief of Staff Kash Patel joins the show to explain that he was in the January 4th meeting with then-President Trump, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Gen. Mark Millie, and Sec. Chris Miller to authorize the use of the National Guard if Mayor Bowser and Nancy Pelosi requested them. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, it is illegal for the President to deploy U.S troops inside the country. It could be seen as a coup if any President unilaterally used the military on U.S soil for law enforcement functions. Afterward, Congress is on a fishing expedition to conjure up a seditious conspiracy charge for former President Trump. Liz Cheney knows the difference between “deployment” and the “authorization” of the National Guard for States to use in their time of need, yet she asked Sec. Miller if President Trump had “deployed” troops on January 6th knowing full well such a domestic deployment would be unconstitutional; this effectively makes the case to exonerate Trump. Later, China’s President Xi Jinping threatened Biden saying he hopes the U.S knows that those playing with fire can get burned. The Biden White House must release a transcript of the call immediately. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Hat tip to a Levin Caller that lite this video up.
The 1st 2 minute + video is of Lix Cheney Lie & at the same time has more Trump/J6’ers exonerating info.
It’d be helpful to those still Illegaly Held in DC Gulag to have the Govt release the names/amounts of Govt Agents on Capital grounds on J6 & what they were doing there & around the 6th., & all the govt’s videos.
No, we/public can’t have any of that type stuff because they’ve, (Govt/Video), been Lying to us All!!!
This is silly. Read Unsettled by Steven Koonin. He explains very clearly how small changes in very small amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a significant impact on global temperature.
Being alarmist about climate change is wrong and costly. It will do untold damage, especially to the poorer parts of the world. But ignorant comments about basic science do not help defeat alarmism; they are in fact counterproductive, because they are easy targets for counter attacks.
He explains very clearly how small changes in very small amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a significant impact on global temperature.
The author in this article also explains very clearly. What does Ron Ross get wrong that Steven Koonin get right?
Or you can read Plank, or Stefan-Boltman, or Arenhius – or the laws of physics and find out that the OPPOSITE is true.
Increasing GHG’s have diminishing effects on temperature.
I debated David Berstein here for months over this.
It is Fundimental Physics.
If you are reading things that contradict the fundimental laws of physics – those are WRONG.
I would mostly agree with you that it is unnecesscary to demonstrate the massive scientific fraud underlying the CAGW religion.
Because – despite the many fundimental errors of warmist climate scientists – their actual conclusions – even though wrong
are nothing to be alarmed about.
The most recent (and all prior) IPCC reports, in their sections on Science, do not project catastrophy.
In fact they do not project anything different from what has been occuring the past 250 years.
Slow sea level rise, slow warming.
Generally a Better more habitable planet.
Will ANY true loves of women — pro choice or pro life care to mention the famous New Zealand study of Post Abortion women by a famous secular sociologist. High incidences of addiction, domestic abuse, cutting, suicide etc. Perhaps the virtue signaling soapbox and political cudgel is more important. Not to me and the women in my family. Btw/ the renowned Norte Dame professor Charles Rice predicted the winning side.
Both of these statements are true. A large majority of people polled supported Roe v Wade, and 72% of Americans supported abortion only up to 15 weeks, which was prevented by Roe v Wade. This is because voters do now research all the facts, and because a cleverly worded poll can influence the result.
Likewise, even though 72% of Americans support abortion restrictions after 15 weeks, Democrats could ultimately pass laws that prohibit abortion restrictions through clever marketing. They could describe it as encoding Roe v Wade, or they could claim that only the most dire circumstances would lead to a third trimester abortion. Too many voters wouldn’t bother to research. All those women who went to Dr Gosnell to abort their healthy, third trimester pregnancies illustrate that, actually, there are women who would kill a healthy viable fetus if given the opportunity. Current abortion laws discouraged this practice in many states.
One of the foundational problems I have with the Democrat Party is that they are not content to believe what they want. They seek to force everyone else to agree. If someone feels he is transgender, Democrats preach that everyone needs to be forced to agree that a boy can become a girl, and my gender is just a state of mind. They aren’t content to allow states to legislate abortion, so that the laws reflect the values of the governed. They want to force their views on everyone.
More conservative states will pass the most restrictive abortion laws, while liberal states like NY and CA will pass the most permissive ones. Those laws can change over time, so if voters feel it is too extreme, they can do something about it, unlike if they disagree with 9 unelected justices.
Karen S: one of the foundational problems I have with you is that you believe every single thing you hear on Fox (non) News, much of which is lies that you accept despite proof to the contrary. Fox preaches a lot of culture wars crap to hook gullibles like you, and from your sophomoric writing, it works. You dare to criticize the “Democrat Party’ for not being content for people “to believe what they want”, and claim that they are tyring to “force everyone else to agree”. Just how, tell me, does the “Democrat Party force” anyone to believe or agree with anything? No one “feels he is trangender”–they KNOW how their gender identity from an early age. If you actually did some REAL research on this topic, instead of getting your daily affirmation from Fox, you would know this. Democrats don’t “preach” anything OTHER THAN acceptance of people whose gender identity doesn’t match their genitalia. But, because you keep harping on this topic, I have to wonder whether your son is identifying as female. Your statement that “a boy can become a girl” discloses the depth of your basic misunderstanding of transgenderism. Such a person is NOT a boy–per her own self-identity–she is a girl born with male genitalia. You don’t understand that gender is more than a set of genitalia.
Third trimester abortions are extremely rare–way less than 1%, but you keep harping about it as if it is a major issue. Such procedures are almost always done because the fetus has lethal congenital anomalies that will doom it to death before or shortly after birth, and/or because the pregnancy is a threat to the woman’s survival. NO ONE is allowed to kill a live-born infant, so stop saying that this happens. It doesn’t.
You claim that “Democrats aren’t content to allow states to legislate abortion”–it isn’t just Democrats who understand that rights of personal liberty and freedom, guaranteed by the Constitution, don’t depend on your address. No state can take away your Constitutional rights. Even in what you call “conservative states”, the majority of citizens do not want the right to abortion abolished. But Republicans are looking at losing the midterms, so they are pandering to the unborn-baby-saving Evangelicals who will flock to the polls, not realizing how they are being manipulated for political reasons. In ruby-red Indiana, for instance, a special legislative session was called and the Republicans who have gerrymandered their way into a super-majority are trying to out-ahole each other. They worked until after midnight, fighting about whether a woman seeking an abortion and her doctor should both be prosecuted for murder, and whether victims of rape and/or incest should be allowed to get an abortion. They settled on allowing a rape victim to get an abortion, but ONLY if she signs an affidavit. And, despite the fact that for most purposes notarization isn’t required, the victim must go to a notary which would force her to disclose both that she is pregnant and a rape victim. That Affidavit must be maintained in her permanent medical file. This degree of A-holery and victimization of rape survivors could only be dreamed by Republicans in a midterm election year when they’re running scared of losing power. BUT you’re complaining about Democrats? Oh, and then there’s Republican Indiana AG Todd Rokita, who after going on Watters’ program and falsely accusing Dr. Caitlin Bernard of lying about a 10 year old rape victim being forced to leave Ohio for an abortion, has doubled down. Somehow, magically, 6 complaints against Dr. Bernard have been filed with his office, which he claims he is “taking seriously”. NONE of these “complaints” is from an actual patient or family member of a patient of Dr. Bernard. One of them is laughably fake: the complainant lists Dr. Bernard’s telephone number as: 555-555-5555. But, you’re complaing about Democrats?
Third trimester abortions are extremely rare–way less than 1%
That makes it all better. 1/10 of 1% is only 5000 babies a year murdered. Just a rounding error to the leftist. Getting that next promotion is a great excuse to kill 5000 babies
You select your facts: in the rare instance of 3rd trimester abortions, the mother, the baby, or both, will likely die. That’s what a LETHAL congenital anomaly is: the baby is so malformed that it can’t survive. In the case where the mother’s life is at risk and termination of the pregnancy must be done to save her life, SHE will die. Is that better?
pregnancy must be done to save her life, SHE will die. Is that better?
Abortions have always been legal for the life of he mother. Just more phoney scare mongering. As this post states, the left can never debate the facts.
Even After Roe – more women died from legal abortions than died in child birth.
It is very rare that childbirth is safer than abortion.
Further late term abortions are distinct from child birth only in that the objective is to kill the fetus.
There is no magic want to make an 8 month baby disappear from inside a womans body.
It must be REMOVED and that is done much the same way a woman gives birth.
And that is dangerous.
And that is the reason that the mortality rate from abortion is HIGHER than from pregnancy – even today.
“Fox News….” Grow up little girl. There never was a Constitutional right to abortion which is why Roe was overturned and the power given back to the States where it belonged all along.
Gee, Sgt Major: the 1973 SCOTUS said there was such a right, which was affirmed repeatedly multiple times thereafter. No state has the “power” to decide what rights the Constitution protects.
And gee wizz the ’73 Scotus flawed decision got checked at the door and kicked back. That’s democracy …you don’t like it ?.
MOST Americans do NOT believe the Roe decision was flawed. For fifty years, all courts reaffirmed the decision. The decision was only overturned by judges who lied to get onto the bench, and who were appointed by a president who LOST the popular vote. Three of them were nominated by someone who cheated to get into office. Those are the facts. How about this–each state holds a referendum about abortion allowing voters to answer several specific questions, such as: 1. should abortion be totally outlawed, no exceptions; doctor must stand by and do nothing while mother dies, so what? 2. should abortion be the woman’s choice up to the age of fetal vaibility; 3. should there be an exception for rape and/or incest.; 4. should there be an exception to an abortion after the age of viability when the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life as determined by her doctor. The radical Republicans would NEVER allow a referendum because they DEPEND on the gullilble Evangelicals who will flock to the polls in the noble gesture to “save unborn babies”. They know that the majority in most states would choose #2 and #4, but they need those Evangelicals.
No state has the “power” to decide what rights the Constitution protects.
You can’t keep up. SCOTUS explained those powers not enumerated in the constitution, belong to the States. That means the States determine when life is protected.
The good news is, now you can petition the state legislature to write the laws you want. and if that fails you can elect new representatives. It will take a lots less than 50 years. Public opinion is on your side. That’s what I have been told anyway.
No, you have it wrong. The Constitution protects the rights of privacy and liberty, which include, in addition to abortion, the right to decide whom to marry, the right to contraception and the right of consenting adults to engage in consensual sex, even if Evangelicals think these things are wrong. Their religious views should not be codified into law.
The good news is that people have now seen the Republican agenda, which is to force everyone to live according to the rules pushed by Evangelicals and Catholics, and they don’t like it. They also see the extent to which Republicans would go to hold onto power, including supporting someone who lies about losing an election and who, after losing dozens of court cases, who couldn’t bully either the VP or state election officials to keep him in power, is willing to start an insurrection to keep power that was stolen in the first place. We see just how fragile our democracy is and the danger Republicans pose to it. We can just hope they’ll vote Republicans out so we have some chance at regaining our Constitutional rights.
No the court decided that the right to privacy extended to abortion.
They were wrong about that.
“which was affirmed repeatedly multiple times thereafter. ”
Nope, Casey subsequently radically changed Roe.
Post Casey cases slowly whittled away at abortion.
There was little doubt that Dobb’s was NOT going to be a case that pro-choice groups would like no matter what.
The alternate to overruling Roe was to allow states to restrict abortions through to the 8th week.
Very close to the same effect,
“No state has the “power” to decide what rights the Constitution protects.”
Only sort of. A state supreme court can find the state or US constitution provides protection for individualk rights that SCOTUS does not recognize.
many of us you accuse of being lackey’s for Fox rarely if ever follow Fox.
I follow verifiable FACTS.
Aparently you think I am some lackey for Fox – because I sometimes reach the same self evident conclusions.
Regardless, I and most of those you pretend beleive what we are told – think for ourselves.
Something you could learn.
Your posts are chock full of nonsense that has long ago been disproven.
You still think Trump and Russia conspired to fix the 2016 election – despite the most massive investigation ever hat ultimately found that entire claim was MADE UP – a HOAX by the Clinton campaign.
It is extremely rare that some conspiracy theory is to roundly disproven – and yet you still parrot it.
The problem with beleiving thins rather than thinking for yourself is YOURS.
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Thks for writing that.
The most fundimental problem we have that is causing the left right divide is not the bias of Fox, or CNN,
It is the fact that those on the left live in a bubble.
I get information from a wide variety of sources – the largest single source is independent journalists. People like Taibbi, or Greenwald, or Barri Weis. I do not personally follow Rogan – but that is another example.
There are some people that hear nothing but Fox – but not that many.
Generally I find those on the right today are better informed than those on the left.
There are many who know nothing that is not printed in WaPo or NYT or reported on CNN or MSNBC.
I do not care that we have biased sources.
But that so many on the left self deprive themselves of so much information – that is highly damaging.
Mill said this better than I can.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Nothing I’ve ever written has been disproven. As to Trump’s cheating with Russia’s help, this was PROVEN by the Mueller investigation, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Clinton campaign. The so-called “Steele Dossier” story is just a red herring used by Fox to convince you disciples that Trump really didn’t cheat, but he did, whch is how he got into office despite losing the popular vote. Mueller relied on court-admissible evidence, like documents and testimony. Trump refused to cooperate, but there were still dozens of guilty pleas and guilty verdicts. A Republican Senate committee investigation confirmed that Russia helped Trump cheat. Dan Coats, former member of Congress, and appointed by Trump to head up all US intellligence agencies, said that Russia helped Trump cheat. THOSE ARE FACTS, not conspiracy theories.
“Nothing I’ve ever written has been disproven.”
Has ANYTHING you have ever written been correct ?
“As to Trump’s cheating with Russia’s help, this was PROVEN by the Mueller investigation”
It has ? Where ?
Then you should be able to easily cite exactly how it is that Trump pulled it off.
Was there massive Republican ballot harvesting in 2016 ? Or did the Russians send people door to door to collect ballots ?
Or did Russia hack those DVS voting machines you claim are unhackable ?
Did the Russians send dead people to vote for Trump in 2016 ?
And how was all this accomplished ?
Did Manafort and Papadoulis engage in Spycraft that MI6, Mueller, the CIA, the NSA and the FBI have never been able to figure out ?
The entire collusion delusion has been nonsense from the start.
Putin did not want the person whose policies would be most harmful as president – Putin did not want Trump.
That you can not figure out the obvious is daft.
“which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Clinton campaign.”
The Steele Dossier was manufactured from DNC gossip and paid for by Clinton and sold to the FBI.
“The so-called “Steele Dossier” story is just a red herring used by Fox to convince you disciples that Trump really didn’t cheat,”
All the Steele Dossier is, is evidence of another bit of immoral political intrigue by Hillary Clinton.
It tells us nothing at all about Trump – because it is fiction.
Fox did nto write it. Igor Denkovich did at Brookings paid for by Clinton.
“but he did,”
Then again you would have evidence.
You do not.
“which is how he got into office despite losing the popular vote.”
Presidential Elections are not decided by polular vote, Just as football games are not decided by rushing yards.
“Mueller relied on court-admissible evidence, like documents and testimony.”
Then you would be able to cite that.
“Trump refused to cooperate,”
False and irrelevant.
“but there were still dozens of guilty pleas and guilty verdicts.”
Not for anything relevant.
“A Republican Senate committee investigation confirmed that Russia helped Trump cheat.”
False, and also wrong., That was not their conclusion, but their conclusions have been subsequently proven false.
” Dan Coats, former member of Congress, and appointed by Trump to head up all US intellligence agencies, said that Russia helped Trump cheat.”
“THOSE ARE FACTS, not conspiracy theories.”
Conspiracy theories are sometimes facts – there was a conspiracy within the FBI and DOJ to use the Hoax Steele Dossier to start an illegal investigation – had Trump not pardoned or commuted some of these convictions – they would have ultimately been dismissed – because they were all the “fruit of the forbidden tree”.
The entire Cross-fire Huricane. Mueller SC investigation was a violation of the constitutional rights of all those involved.
The prosecutions of Russian’s that Mueller attempted never went to a jury trial – because Mueller was forced to withdraw charges he had no evidence for – what should have happened in the other cases. Mueller was also surprised – because the russian businesses that he accused – chose to defend themselves, rather than roll up house and return to Russia.
Frankly it is disingenuous to talk about “Mueller” as it was self evident from his appearance before congress that he no longer had the cognitive ability to run anything. Regardless, someone ran these investigations – and Mueller’s disability sheilded them from consequences for their own misconduct.
Most of the people at DOJ/FBI./SC that you are citing as heroes, are obviously biased partisans who have no place in law enforcement.
We are now discovering that the Same FBI agent that pushed the Steele Dossier, is also responsible for repeatedly squashing the Hunter Biden investigation.
I do not particularly care if people are transgendered.
I do care that those on the left are pushing people.
But I would directly address your claim that people KNOW at a young age – as opposed to feel – as opposed to are pushed.
We do not as of yet have a factual marker for homosexuality.
Is there a gay gene ? a Trans Gene ?
Why are some people gay or trans and others not ?
I would be happy to explore an objective basis for such claims – but we are not allowed to do so.
Children “know” lots of things. They know all about magic, and dragons,
This is why Children are not permitted to make life altering decisions on their own until they are adults.
I do not care if adults are trans or gay – so long as that forces no duty or burden on others.
I am not happy with entrusting parents to raise children, but I am far less trusting of govenrment and teachers.
The freedom to make your own choices – often results in making bad choices.
I fully support YOUR freedom so long as the consequences of YOUR bad choices are on YOU.
Take drugs, be homosexual, be Trans, I do not care. Nor am I judging you – so long as you leave me the same breadth of freedom I give you.
If your choices work out – give you a better life – more power to you. If not – your failures are your problem, I am not here to bail you out, and you are not obligated to bail me out.
With respect to abortions – especially late abortions.
The Gutmacher (PP) data shows that elective abortions (as opposed to those you reference) will occur as late as the law allows.
If you wish to continue to claim there are no horrible late abortions or murder children after birth – read about Gosnel.
If you allow late elective abortions – you will get them.
The only right to individual freedom and liberty democrats support – is that of abortion.
“the majority of citizens do not want the right to abortion abolished”
If that is correct – and it is important to them – that is what will happen.
If most texans want unrestricted abortions – texas would have unrestricted abortion.
I am the libertarian here who understand that actual rights can not be taken away by the majority. ‘
YOU are the propoent of democracy over all.
Then let the people of Texas decide for Texas.
With respect to Indiana – neither you nor I live in indiana.
If as you claim whatever is actually being done, is not supported by the majority – indiana will not remain republican long.
I follow Indiana law. I have relatives who live there.
I did not ask if you followed IA law.
You do not live there,
You can not legally vote there.
Your interest in IA is as a spectator, not a participant
Whatever IA does it does not directly impact you.
IA will not alter your abortion options.
As to the rest of your rant – AGAIN – the people of IA will decide – if you are right – Republicans will be wiped out.
There is an election coming – there are many issues that will effect that election.
One of which is that SOME of the lawlessness and potential fraud are still in place.
These are unlikely to effect the house, but they will effect statewide elections – especially in the 6 swing states where the 2020 Fraud operations are easily brought back.
We already see democrats meddling in Republican primaries – I do not care about democrats voting in Republican primaries.
Or the DCCC pumping money into so called radical right win republican candidates – if that is the gamble they wish to take.
But we already had one primary in CO where the outcome was a RADICAL departure from Polls and expectations.
Two candidates who were way down int he polls, performed overall significantly more than 20pts better than polling.
One of the candidates was virtually unheard of – ran almost no adds at all – and still won in 1/3 of precincts.
There are very strong indications of Fraud, and the winning candidate was tied to Zuckerburgs election fraud organization.
I do not care who wins specific elections.
But when the polls are RADICALLY wrong – that needs to be investigated.
Rarely double dark horses happen. But it is very rare and should always be checked for fraud.
There are massive problems with the Bernard story. We still do not know if it was a hoax or not,
Only that SOME Teen was actually raped.
We do not know that the law was followed.
We do know that at the time of the appearance on Carlson the AG’s story was correct.
No rape had been reported and Bernard was a mandatory reporter.
We also know there are alot of unexplained and missing holes in this story.
There are NO “problems” with “the Bernard story”. Dr. Caitlin Bernard reported that she performed an abortion for a 10 year old Ohio girl who couldn’t get an abortion in Ohio. Immediately, the Indiana AG, Todd Rokita, accused Dr. Bernard of lying, and called her an “aboriton activist”, he accused her of failing to follow mandatory reporting requirements in the past, and said he was going after her license. He accused her of violating HIPAA, and by failing to report the rape, was allowing a child predator to run loose on the streets. Turns out, everything she said was true. The child was referred to her by an Ohio colleague who treats child rape victims. The perpetrator had already been arrested and was in custody when Rokita went on Watters’ program, which Rokita could have confirmed with a simple phone call DNA was collected from the pregnancy, which will prove his guilt. BUT, most of all is the outrageousness of Rokita, who went on national television and LIED about Dr. Bernard, who DID file the required reports. IU Health investigated the matter and confirmed that Dr. Bernard has always compled with the law and has always filed the necessary reports. Rokita had no proof that Dr. Bernard ever failed to file necessary reports, and vowed to “get to the bottom” of the story. He has never admitted he lied, he has never apologized, and has doubled down. Now, 6 consumer complaints against Dr. Bernard were just filed with his office, none of which involved either a patient of Dr. Bernard or a family member of a patient. One of them listed Dr. Bernard’s telephone number as 555-555-5555. Dr. Bernard just HAS to be wrong somehow because the story points out the harsh reality of abortion bans and how they affect real people. Both the NY Post and Wall Street Journal, which had questioned the veracity of the story, printed retractions. But, not Fox.
You don’t speak for “we”, and you don’t know what the hell you’re talkling about. Like the disciple you are, you believe whatever Fox puts out and cannot be budged by actual facts.
Of course there are problems with the Bernard story.
“Dr. Caitlin Bernard reported that she performed an abortion for a 10 year old Ohio girl who couldn’t get an abortion in Ohio.”
No, she told the news, that is not “reporting” – Bernard is a mandated reporter.
The people who refered this girl to her were mandated reporters.
There is no circusmtance in which a 10yr old girl is pregnant in which a crime has not been committed that MUST be reported.
Yet, this hit the press almost a week before it was reported to law enforcement.
There are OBVIOUS problems.
“Immediately, the Indiana AG, Todd Rokita, accused Dr. Bernard of lying, and called her an “aboriton activist”, he accused her of failing to follow mandatory reporting requirements in the past, and said he was going after her license. He accused her of violating HIPAA, and by failing to report the rape, was allowing a child predator to run loose on the streets.”
All of which is true.
“Turns out, everything she said was true.”
That is likely also, but it does not change the fact that the IA AG’s remarks are True.
Bernard was either lying or failed to file required reports.
She is an abortion activist – I doubt she would deny that.
She has failed to follow reporting requirements in the past,
an she probably should lose her license for failing to do so.
I am not sure if she violated HIPPA – that is a close call.
Regardless, she got her moral ethical and legal responsibilities upside down and backwards.
She called he press about a private medical matter of her patient.
A patient that even if she consented to release medical information was to young to do so.
And as a mandated reporter she failed to report a rape.
“The perpetrator had already been arrested and was in custody when Rokita went on Watters’ program, which Rokita could have confirmed with a simple phone call”
I hope you have evidence of that, because not only did Rokita check, but SEVERAL media outlets went looking for the arrests and charges and no one found any for several days.
My guess is that you are making that up.
Regardless, confirming your claim was not simple – half the media left and right tried and it took several days before anything matching appeared.
In fact the delay was so great it is entirely possible that Bernard’s story was a Hoax, and she was fortunate enough to have a similar child rape occur at arround the same time.
To my knowledge no one has as of yet confirmed that the child Bernard dealt with and the victim of the separately reported rapist are the same.
Normally I would not challenge that – But hoaxes from the left are so common place.
“BUT, most of all is the outrageousness of Rokita, who went on national television and LIED about Dr. Bernard,”
Except that he did not. The timeline does not support your claim.
“who DID file the required reports.”
Because you say so ?
“IU Health investigated the matter and confirmed that Dr. Bernard has always compled with the law and has always filed the necessary reports.”
FALSE. IU Health is Bernard’s employer. They conducted an internal review and found that Bernard had not violated patient confidentiality.
I have found no evidence they confirmed that a mandated report of th rape was filed.
“Rokita had no proof that Dr. Bernard ever failed to file necessary reports,”
Of course he did – the required reports had not been filed.
“and vowed to “get to the bottom” of the story. He has never admitted he lied, he has never apologized, and has doubled down.”
Because he did not.
“Now, 6 consumer complaints against Dr. Bernard were just filed with his office, none of which involved either a patient of Dr. Bernard or a family member of a patient.”
So ? The complaints may be good, bad, or otherwise. If you are a doctor and you go to the press, you should expect that to provoke complaints.
“One of them listed Dr. Bernard’s telephone number as 555-555-5555.”
So ? That is meaningful how ?
“Dr. Bernard just HAS to be wrong somehow because the story points out the harsh reality of abortion bans and how they affect real people. Both the NY Post and Wall Street Journal, which had questioned the veracity of the story, printed retractions. But, not Fox.”
With respect to the specific case – and not Bernard, there are lots of other questions. These issues are complex and do not always work out as they should, because people often make stupid choices. But it is not the responsibility of the rest of us to make it impossible for others to be harmed by stupid choices.
Given this rape occurred – it should have been reported long before the child was 10 weeks pregnant.
The child knew she was raped – and should have come forward immediately – though we usually do not hold children to the standards of adults.
It is highly likely that some adult aside from the rapist was aware of this – again long before it became a media circus.
There are myriads of reasons that bring this to medical and law enforcement attention quickly is very important.
Gathering evidence, preventing venerial disease, preventing pregnancy.
You claimed there was DNA – unless that is from the fetus – I doubt that. DNA is typically taken as part of a rape exam, and that must happen shortly after the rape to get DNA. Further the SOP for a rape exam is treatment for potential VD and the morning after pill.
Given this child was pregnant – it is unlikely there was a rape exam that would have gotten DNA.
You are engaged int he typical shallow thinking of LEft wing nuts.
Which si what Dr. Bernard and similar activists count on.
You make sensational claims – forgetting we live in the reap world, where reported rapes have rape exams, gather DNA, treat for potential VD and provide the morning after pill, and are reported to the police. Had these things happened Dr. Bernard would not have been involved.
So we KNOW they did not happen – atleast not as is the norm.
Whether you like it or not it is self evident that more than one medical professional DROPPED THE BALL.
And all that presumes the publicly reported child rape victim is the one Dr. Bernard went to the press about.
I would note that Bernard has no HIPPA responsibiliyt and no reporting requirement if this is all a hoax.
“You don’t speak for “we””
There is more than one person who shares my views so “we” is acceptable.
I do not speak for YOU. Thank god.
“and you don’t know what the hell you’re talkling about.”
And yet you are the one with the shallow understanding of the facts, mis reporting the facts and import of what IU Health stated.
“Like the disciple you are,”
I am no ones “disciple” – I criticised YOU for making claims regarding the Bernard story that do not have supporting evidence.
“you believe whatever Fox puts out and cannot be budged by actual facts.”
When you provide actual facts – I will be “budged” by them.
Do you have a police report of any kind filed in IA prior to Bernard going to the media ?
Without that Rokita was telling the truth.
Do you have a report by Bernard to the police prior to going to the media ?
Without that Bernard has failed at her legally required mandated reporting.
Bernard is a manditory reporter.
At the time she went public NO ONE had reported a child rape.
At a bare minimum Bernard violated child rape reporting laws.
Or this is STILL a hoax
Are you always so mellow? For the record, I think that Karen is a fine writer.
I’ll ask you yet again (you’ve never been willing to answer): if abortion law were up to you, what regulations would you choose?
We must recognize the actual right to ownership and control of ones own body.
Get that right and the rest is easy.
The pregnancy is NOT ones body – it is just IN your body.
You have the absolute right to remove it at any time prior to birth.
Conversely the state MAY (or may not) require efforts that do not increase the risk to the woman to preserve the life of the pregnancy.
Get the actual rights involved correct – and the rest of the issues are easy.
New York State already has an extraordinarily permissive abortion statute. In fact, New York’s unelected Governor Kathy Hochul recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal crowing about opportunities for abortion services in New York.
Thank you Jonathan Turley. Being PRO-LIFE & PRO-CHOICE, I’m concerned that young people, female & male are provided the opportunity to contribute & create their own, their child’s & all our livelihood. I want young women & men to feel welcomed, to find a place to make a home, to contribute, to give & receive with their unique visions, knowledge & effort. Real choice requires the opportunity to contribute & make one’s living in collaboration with people & nature. We live intertwined, each part of a collective ‘economy’ (Greek ‘oikos’ = ‘home’ + ‘namein’ = ‘care-&-nurture’) involving the contributions of 8 billion people worldwide. Yet we are all accustomed to the oligarch-led colonial genocide & life-destroying occupation we live in. We all submit to ‘exogenous’ (Latin ‘other-generated’) trillionaire oligarch owned & commanded economy & governments.
Do hidden oligarch share holders of the Federal Reserve (Bank-of-England, Bank-of-International-Settlements) determine US & western Monetary-Policy? Do hidden campaign finances control (s)elections? Do oligarchs strategize & capture companies, governments & ministries? Did Europeans flee oligarch-aristocrat disastrous perpetual war, failed economic & ecological mismanagement to violently colonize, impose the same failed oligarch command worldwide? Do we, as falsely indoctrinated by our hidden oligarch trickledown, violently regime-change to impose our totally false easily-manipulated ‘democracies’ worldwide?
As part of our own loss of agency in our own lives, there is a pervasive belief in exclusive privilege to consume whatever we choose, necessary or unnecessary, extract-mine-deforest-exploit, pillage-destabilize-regime-change-war the 3rd world & economically abuse each other. In Europe Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek & Roman oligarch invasions imposed their false centralized controlling metal-coin ‘money’ (Gk ‘mnemosis’ = ‘memory’) upon invaded & subjugated ‘indigenous’ (L ‘self-generating’) nations. Isn’t it time to recall humanity’s ancient indigenous sovereign heritage of peace & prosperity?
70% of Americans & humanity today live in ~100 (50-150) person Multihome-Dwelling-Complexes (eg. Apartment, townhouse & village) just as our indigenous ancestors before strategized for sovereign intimate, intergenerational, female-male, interdisciplinary, critical-mass, economies-of-scale. Today we’ve been made ignorant of our heritage. When we organize our local multi-million dollar ‘domestic’ Multihome human, Community-Health & material resource economies as all humanity’s indigenous ancestors, then we develop ‘indigenous’ economic sovereignty & government will take their lead from us.. Domestic economy provides the ‘economies-of-scale’ launching pad upon which to rebuild industrial & commercial Relational-Economy. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy
DO-WE-KNOW-WHO-WE-ARE-? is an open-source, public-domain web-based Community-Economy software. Indigenous society worldwide started /c intimate, intergenerational, female-male, interdisciplinary critical-mass, economies of scale Multihome Fractal. Within each multihome ‘Do-we-know-?’ web-software facilitates residents & neighbours to easily: 1) CATALOGUE our individual & business talents, goods, services, resources & dreams as complementary-talents, 2) MAP collaborative relationships, 3) ACCOUNT for transactions & contributions, 4) COMMUNICATE locally /c record keeping, agreement/contract development, bridge building & conflict resolution among family, friends & neighbours. Indigene Community’s Web-Software programmers have developed Do-we-know? so each person’s specialized gift becomes an expert capable asset/value for the Multihome community & society at large. When communities show their strengths & leadership, then governments have active contributing partners to collaborate for essential goods & services from the bottom-up. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/9-do-we-know-who-we-are
It is chilling to think what Democrats would do if they ever did pack the Supreme Court. Currently, SCOTUS has upheld free speech. That could easily change. Get enough far Left activists on the Court through packing, and there might be laws against pro-life views or rallies one day.
It was horrifying to hear some Democrat activists and politicians speak of “re-education camps” for Trump supporters, also known as Republican voters.
History has shown us what happens when governments become too powerful at the expense of individual rights for the “common good”, as defined by that government. Will ignorant voters doom us to repeat that failed experiment?
“ Get enough far Left activists on the Court through packing, and there might be laws against pro-life views or rallies one day.”
There are already laws against pro-LGBTQ views and that’s from the far right. Books being banned because they have a different view. Discussion of LGBTQ issues are banned in high schools and even corporations in Florida. The current Supreme Court seems perfectly ok with that. So if the right can make laws against certain views like CRT, and LGBTQ why can’t the left do the same? It seems according to the right opposing views shouldn’t be tolerated.
Sorry Karen, but the sexualization of children is off limits in all civilized societies. Advocating against this is very different from the political and cultural censorship that you and your left wing ilk support so much. Kids do not fall into the same category as us voters.
Quiet conservative, I think you have mixed me up with another poster who was responding to me. Read my comments again and reassess.
Discussion of LGBTQ issues are banned in high schools and even corporations in Florida.
Because the public schools are not the proper platform for such subjects. Schools are for academic study. Parents and the community are for the social issues.
Our declined and morals are because of the public schools. Time to put a stop to such silliness.
Anonymous, there are no laws against LGBT views.
Are you referring to parental objections over sexualized content in school libraries that they deem inappropriate for their young children? Or are you referring to parental objections to schools promoting transgenderism and keeping it from parents?
An adult can say or read whatever he wants. There are laws that restrict what can be shown to children. For instance, a teacher cannot take a student into a back room and show him porn, although that teacher would be free to watch porn on his own time.
Students are a captive audience. Laws require students to go to school or be homeschooled. Just as an employee at a company does not have the right to hijack company time and spend all day proselytizing politically to his coworkers or customers, iris inappropriate for teachers to proselytize their political agenda to students. Education in America is failing. Over 40% of students cannot read at grade level, and in some parts of the country that figure is worse. Yet, Leftism has infested the public education system. Administrators and teachers feel entitled to push their far Left beliefs on kids who are vulnerable. This grooms them to become future far Left Democrat voters.
You bet parents can, and will, object when schools divert from teaching literature and STEM into far Leftism.
It is gaslighting to pretend there are laws banning LGBT views or speech. By saying “books are banned”, you leave off the part about their being deemed inappropriate for children in public school libraries. For instance, one of those books contained graphic descriptions of pedophilia, described as no big deal. Another described sex acts between minors.
The Left isn’t trying to restrict certain books from children’s school libraries; they are trying to prohibit adults from voicing heir opinions anywhere. Stop gaslighting.
NOBODY PROMOTES transgendersim. How could it be “promoted” anyway? What IS promoted is accepting people for who they are; gay, straight, black, white, purple, female, male, LGBTQ…whatever, without judging them for who they are. THAT’S not a partisan political position, but people like you seem to think that transgender people should be outcast, humiliated, or shunned, so refusing to do so is “leftism”.
There was a recent piece done about a Texas school thar removed books from the school library deemed “inappropriate”. A reoirter webt through a dumpster behind the school. Among the books was several copies of a book written by Michelle Obama. You would probably consider this to be “far Leftism”. You also don’t know what “gaslighting” is either.
The first wave of sexual development occurs in the womb.
That is what differentiates males and females.
We are born with different sex organs, but very little further sexual development occurs until puberty.
The left talks about gender fluid children – all children are gender fluid to some extent prior to puberty.
Children are not able to make life long decisions.
If you decide you must trust and respect all the choices of children – then you must respect their belief they can fly or that there are dragons.
We do all kinds of things to humor the fantasies of Children – and that is wise. But making actual life altering changes based on the whims of children is BAD PARENTING, and if done by teachers is CRIMINAL.
John , And this is where we are today in this nightmare. Children being sexualized and conned by groomers and prog activists to suit their own selfish and warped desires. Saying the word “morality” to these obnoxious charlatans is akin to tossing garlic on a vampire. Common sense and common decency needs to come back to America…not degenerate filth applied to innocent children as though it’s a choice the prog culture demands they be subject to.
There is damage that has been done that may take a generation to repair.
There is a whole generation that has to a large extent had $hit for schools.
That is an over simplification – because there are other factors screwing them up too.
But those people – many of whom post here are to a large extent going to remain angry and stupid and neurotic and depressed and less productive the rest of their lives.
That is the consequence of bad education.
But all of our schools are not F’d up.
Further education has become a winning republican issue – even in deep blue areas.
Some people KNOW we can do better, others know what we have is F’d up and they will try anything.
One of the misperceptions of the left is that they will carry their brain dead ideology into their choices regarding their children.
You can get a white mother to kotow to the left and confess her priviledge.
But F$%k with her white 7yr old son – call him a racist by virtue of his maleness or race, send him to the back of the class
and you have a tiger by the tail.
We can talk about equality and fairness all we want.
We can try to crush our personal march towards self interest – but everything flips when it comes to our children.
Desantis won in FL – because 300K single black mothers voted republican – because Gillium vowed to close the charter schools their kids attended.
One of the simplest things we could do to fix education is to end public schools – privatize them all.
Continue to finance education publicly – but give the money to parents to use at the school of their choice.
When schools are businesses whose job is to turn out children educated to meet the demands of their customers – parents.
Quality improves dramatically.
All this nonsense will die swiftly – because parents will not tolerate it – and schools will be answerable to parents.
And if schools do not respond to parents – the parents will go elsewhere.
That is how free markets work.
We are not discussing ADULTS we are discussing children.
You are seeking to sexualize them far earlier than they are ready for.
There is a reason many republicans are calling this grooming.
The single largest group sexually abusing children outside of family has always been teachers.
It is inappropriate for a teacher to initiate any discussions with a child regarding sex outside the context of
classes that are a part of approved curriculum. Any discussion initiated by a child that is not an indication
of sexual abuse should be refered to parents. Any discussion that is indicitive of abuse should be reported
as mandated by law.
A 3rd grade teacher initiating discussion or contact with a student about sex is with near certainty already violating
criminal law regarding pedophilia.
There is no fundimental difference in the legally acceptable conduct of a teacher, a neighbor, an uncle or any other caregiver that is NOT the parents.
Contra the left teachers are responsible to educate children only in the domain of the official curicula,
They are not parents, they are not friends, they are only marginally care givers.
The responsibility for children outside the narrow domain of public education rests with parents – not teachers, not the state.
Workers in FL now have protection against being harassed or punished for choosing not to apply anything other than biologically and grammatically correct pronouns. An employee can no longer be fired for refusing to apply the plural pronoun “they” to one person. They can no longer be forced to attend workshops or training seminars that teach that everyone has to affirm and agree with someone who believes they can change their gender, and that being a woman is just a state of mind.
No more compulsory forced speech about transgenderism in FL schools or businesses.
Learn to Spell!
It’s LGBT”P”, LGBT”P”, LGBTP, P for Pedophiles!!!
Now you people can get back to spread Fauci’s Schlong Pox.
Karen S: you picked up the word “chllling” from Turley, and you don’t understand what it means, so stop using it. The SCOTUS IS packed–with ultra right wingers who were appointed by presidential office holders who got into office despite losing the popular vote. Four of them lied about their views on Roe v. Wade just to get onto the bench and force all Americans to live according to the rules of their Catholic faith, which MOST American’s don’t share. Americans no longer have the right to decide for themselves whether a fetus prior to the age of viability has the same rights as a fully-formed person. The majority of Americans believe that prior to the age of viability, a woman should have the freedom and right of individual autonomy to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy. That right was taken away.
You don’t speak for “us” or what “we” learn from history. You have it exaclty backward. Since the Trump judges got shoved onto the SCOTUS, Americans face biggest risk to “individual rights” in our recent history. Never before has a right found to be protected by the Constitution and reaffirmed over the course of 50 years been stripped away by a subsequent SCOTUS ruling. They’re coming next for the right to contraception, sex between consenting adults, and marriage equality.
Senators Warren and Hirono are correct when criticizing “crisis pregnancy centers”–they are anti-abortion activists who try to convince women who don’t want to be pregnant not to get an abortion. They try to make them feel guilty about wanting to terminate, oftentimes giving out false information–for instance, that early pregnancy embryos and fetusus “feel pain” (perception isn’t possible without development of the cerebral cortex), that they will regret their decision later on (which studies show isn’t true at all), that they’re being unfair to the baby’s father…so on. They have an anti-abortion agenda masquerading as offering “help” to women who are pregnant and don’t want to be. They exploit these womens’ vulnerabilities. They should be forced to disclose what their agenda really is–which is not to help a woman in a “crisis pregnancy”.
“Senators Warren and Hirono are correct when criticizing “crisis pregnancy centers”–they are anti-abortion activists who try to convince women who don’t want to be pregnant not to get an abortion. ”
So ? They do so while providing meaningful services for these women.
“They try to make them feel guilty about wanting to terminate”
Those on the left try to make me feel guilty about eating meat.
So what ?
“oftentimes giving out false information–for instance, that early pregnancy embryos and fetusus “feel pain” (perception isn’t possible without development of the cerebral cortex),”
False and false. Every single creature in existance responds to negative stimuli in their environment.
“They have an anti-abortion agenda”
Absolutely and they make no secret about it.
So does the catholic church, so do many evangelic churches.
“They exploit these womens’ vulnerabilities.”
Pleanned parenthood exploits these women;s vulnerabilities for money.
“They should be forced to disclose what their agenda really is”
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
― Adam Smith
Everyone acts in their own self interest – PP, you, crisis pregnancy centers,
You should assume that in everything.
And you should get past the stupid presumption that it is bad.
Self interest is the engine of growth in standard of living – it is why free markets succeed and socialism fails.
I would note that these “crisis pregnancy” centers – are not hiding their goals.
The women who go there know everything you claim ahead.
Women go to crisis pregancy centers for HELP, knowing those centers will provide certain things and not others.
An Abortion clinic is no different.
Young Democrats are the new Red Army, eager totalitarians with no concept of the freedoms they throw away. It’s all fine when those freedoms, like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, belong to others. One could suppose that if conservatives began cancelling Liberals, shouting them down in auditoriums, and trying to get them fired, that they would object.