Why it's important to follow back to the sources of Tweet. That is a real proposed amendment, however it was put forward by a pro-choice politician to draw attention to how fucked the real laws are: https://www.yahoo.com/news/women-just-report-pregnancies-state-203755022.html
Unfortunately, UA is right. There are many states were after X amount of years, if there's been enough time for a child-parent relationship to be established, the guy may still be on the hook regardless of paternity. A Navy buddy's husband is in that same position with his ex-wife in Montana. Fucked up for the guy, but even more fucked up for the kid.
That is not the same thing as UA is suggesting. The law to which you are referring is that if a woman is married and becomes pregnant, then divorce, that man is responsible for all children conceived in that marriage. My sister in law used that same law to get child support from her Navy (ex) husband. The paternity test revealed her ex-husband was not the father of the twins. The reason for this law is to ensure someone pays the child’s expenses. Not saying it’s right. God knows, there’s not a lot of issues on which I care to defend my sister in law - or anyone who cheats for that matter. But … as the right likes to say, it’s not the kid’s fault.
Looks like they're starting to call in the big guns. National Guard starting to appear at pro-choice protests.
Pretty refreshing that the guy who sung about murdering his mom and girlfriend is pro-womens' rights. Elton John really worked his magic on him.
kinda think maybe that's just trolling. Surely he knows that if VA got aggressive he could just move over to MD - and VA is probably too purple to even try. So just "own the libs" by distracting them with the shiny object.
Well, technically, not out of thin air but plucked from the soil of Fundy Catholicism which the Baptists used to claim were not even real Christians until an alliance was politically advantagous
according to Muslims on Twitter the ACTUAL Taliban is much LESS strict about abortion, it's not something Islam objects to at all before "quickening" which is not exactly lined up with the "viability" standard but it's a lot closer to that than to what Christian Nationalist Zealots want
I have resisted expressing this sentiment about anyone, even Trump (though it certainly applies there too) but the single best thing that could happen for our collective future is for the two dudes over 70 on SCOTUS become unable to serve within the next, say, 3 months
He's now 61, if we were not in so much trouble or if there was a term limit system, fine, but there's a reason why Republicans push younger nominees. They'd rather have someone start at 50ish and go 30 or more as someone start in their sixties and maybe only get 10-15 Edit - I could more easily see it if somehow the Chief Justice seat came open
I don't think Thomas is trolling here. I am pretty sure that he personally wrote dissents in the three cases he cites saying that they were bad law and believes with all his heart that they are wrongly decided. Loving was of course decided well before he was on the Court or had a chance to engage in an interracial marriage. But he doesn't have to worry personally about interracial marriage being banned because he and his pals can come up with some rationalization allowing it despite the lack of a constitutional right to privacy and despite the complete lack of historical or originalist support for interracial marriage as a right.
For that reason, as delicious as it would be to see Anita Hill replace Clarence Thomas when he finally croaks ... it can't happen.
So, this morning, I got a TikTok forwarded to me from a guy I knew in high school. He's now a facebook friend. Anyway, the Tik Tok was a southern woman bitching about how "blue state liberals" deserted them. and I'm thinking ... "Bitch, you probably voted Republican for the last 40 years!! it's not blue state liberals that deserted you, it was your own ability to decipher bullshit propaganda from reality".
Something I’ve seen pop up on conservative outlets. A few are realizing they aren’t winning the PR battle so far. So to burnish their compassionate conservative credentials they trot out the talking point that every state allows an abortion to save the life of the mother. Which is technically correct, but completely disingenuous and dangerous. Some states want to have the ‘two doctors concur’ requirement followed by sworn affidavits. And everyone faces criminal liability if there are any falsehoods. We will also see more red tape and personal liability added to these rare life of the mother situations. This is dangerous because pregnant women might think sure I live in Talibama, but I can still get an abortion if my life is in danger. When the truth is that these Republican legislators couldn’t care less about the mother’s life.