The U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-3 to strike down restrictions on abortion in Texas that would have caused most clinics to close. If fully implemented, the state law would have reduced the number of places where abortions could be performed to only 10.
The reactionaries who control the Texas legislature will have to think of something new. If they have any spare time left over after wrangling the abortion issue, they might consider restoring the billions of dollars they cut from public schools in 2011.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
<>
Especially since we already know that girls who stay in school delay pregnancy… Or is that just something we tell poor brown people in developing countries?
LikeLike
So much for the “Stacking the Court by Delaying Hearings on a New Justice” argument from the far right. Even with an ultra-conservative, anti-abortion Justice, the vote would have been 5-4. (Now show your total hypocrisy by finally holding the hearings.)
LikeLike
Some questions to my fellow former fetuses (or is it feti?):
Just like there are bad guns to own, are there bad abortions to have?
Is there such a thing as a bad abortion?
Would the left continue supporting unregulated abortions if they are performed with unregulated guns?
LikeLike
Sure there are, the law states it is after 20 weeks, far more regulated than guns . A little too much rum I suspect . But you are all for freedoms ,free choice , “the Government that governs best is the government that governs least “. But you want intrusive government when it is a women’s choice to decide what happens to her body and her life.
So at what level do you object to the government interfering in free choice. Should the government ban contraception . After all that egg and sperm were living cells.
Hypocrisy abounds on the right.
LikeLike
Rum & the lash:
Will the right protect the lives of adults by banning assault rifles? Will it oppose the death penalty? Will it demand better health care for all Americans to preserve lives? At least be consistent. Oppose abortion, if you will, but also demand a ban on assault weapons.
LikeLike
To answer your questions:
1. There is no such thing as a “bad gun”. Can there be a “bad abortion? Yes, when it is performed in the back alley with a coat hanger dug out of dumpster.
2. Yes, see #1.
3. No. (but I like your facetiousness in asking)
To understand about the safety of legalized abortion see: https://www.facebook.com/Mediamatters/videos/vb.26595441166/10153671203956167/?type=2&theater
LikeLike
Its not “her body” and there are many, many laws that tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies, all of which make common sense. I cannot sell my body for sex or sell an organ, and i’ll be hard pressed to find a doctor to amputate a limb just because…
A uterus is a house, the mother is a landlord, and a child needs protection from an untimely eviction.
LikeLike
“Its not “her body” and there are many, many laws that tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies, all of which make common sense”
Which is why they are in flux . As if commonsense is the reason we have laws.
You really would do well in parts of the world that believe your statement.
Again I suspect that your concern is not sincere. But I do not know that for a fact . But a teacher who could have seen the carnage of Sandy Hook and not object to the easy access to weapons of mass carnage probably belongs nowhere near children . Hopefully your claim to being a teacher is as fraudulent as concern for the unborn.
LikeLike
A. Your moniker is disgusting.
B. HOW DARE YOU say that women are merely “landlords,” or “houses?” You sir (I assume you are a man, as I would HOPE that no woman would make such an awful statement) are a disgrace.
And if you ARE a woman, you’re even MORE of a disgrace.
LikeLike
FWIW, the name is a Pogues/Churchill reference.
LikeLike
What you describe as “assault rifles” is a propaganda term. Machine guns have been illegal since 1934.
I support the death penalty because the taking of a life must be countered by the strongest penalty out there. So the death penalty for murder is a confirmation of life. So you’d oppose the death penalty for that nut who shot up the Charleston church last year?
Who’s against better healthcare?
Pretty consistent here…
LikeLike
I would make sure that nut never had access to a gun, and there would never have been a Charleston massacre or a Sandy Hook massacre or an Orlando massacre.
LikeLike
you didn’t answer my question. fair enough, its your blog. i’m just grateful you didn’t censor me this time. 🙂
LikeLike
Rum,
Since you asked about my consistence, here is my scorecard: I am in favor of abortion for women who choose it and in favor of the death penalty for mass murderers. I am consistent. You are not. You oppose abortion but favor the death penalty.
LikeLike
Some of us think that abortion has made life disposable. Abortions is one reason we have mass murder. Yeah i said it. And bans on “assault weapons” has not helped Norway or France, to name a few.
LikeLike
R, S & L
War, especially of the type that this country has engaged in since WW2 (and even before, see: “War is a Racket” by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC: https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html) has made “life disposable” for quite a while now.
LikeLike
So my grandfather who fought the Nazis is just like Eric Klebold?
LikeLike
Your mis-logic is astounding RS&L.
LikeLike
“You oppose abortion but favor the death penalty.”
Are you equating the innocent with the guilty?
LikeLike
You are the one doing so.
LikeLike
Here’s an offer I hope you won’t refuse: I’ll abandon my support for the death penalty if you abandon your support for abortion. That way, we are both consistent in our support for life…
BTW, just a thought, how could any teacher support abortion, even from a purely economic position?
LikeLike
“BTW, just a thought, how could any teacher support abortion, even from a purely economic position?”
Just a thought, but how about because they’re pregnant and don’t want to have the child?
LikeLike
Wow, R, S and L, where did you come from?
Could you please return there?
PS. Diane you are a much more tolerant person than I am. Anyone with a username like that would be dismissed on my blog. I appreciate your devotion to free speech.
LikeLike
Threatened, not sure how much more of RUM I can tolerate. Did you read the story today of the Texas mom who shot her 2 beautiful daughters dead, then was shot dead by the police. The dad’s birthday. She was proud of her 10 guns. They didn’t protect her, they destroyed her and her family. I don’t think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
LikeLike
The founders sought to empower the states with militias in case the Federal Govt got tyrannical .
Modern Conservatives are strict constructionists only until they hold the reins of power . Despicable on every issue . Does anyone seriously think that the court in 19th century America was liberal . Their interpenetration of the constitution is clear.
Thomas, Roberts and Alito could choke on chicken bones and improve the air quality in Washington DC.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
“In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”
“Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional.”
LikeLike
Guns and abortion, two things that bring us all together.
LikeLike
FINALLY: The court got SOMETHING RIGHT.
LikeLike
I will never understand how the Supreme Court entertains any such cases. It was all decided in the past, and it needs to stay in the past. Much of it seems to be sleight of hand so we don’t know what other harm our politicians are doing.
LikeLike