U.S. judge blocks enforcement of near-total abortion ban in Texas

The weird worship of one dude is a fanatical contempt for the will of the People:

​

 

No doubt .. just like Worship of the Heir Biden is a fanatical contempt for the founding principles, civil liberties, and the Environment.

Despite being horribly flawed - would have been better if "The Dude" was President that this clownshow.

 

... is a fake, contrived attempt at equivalency that fails miserably.

Biden is an ordinary politicians who does not command a cult whose emotional subservience could ever foment a January 6-style attack on democracy

 

The only thing fake and contrived is your feeble attempts at making an argument -- pretending you are not once again going to get it handed to you.

Didn't claim the cult followers of the Blue Clown Show could forment a Capital attack -- so nice Strawmant in an attempt to avoid what I did claim... but certainly there was violence and intimidation in the Black Lives Matter Protests .. so even if I had I would be right and you would be wrong.

What I did claim was that Blue violates the founding principles just like Red .. The party of the ACLU is now Anti ACLU - the party of anti-war .. now the new Neocons .. the party of free speech .. now rabid anti speech zealots -

And last but not least .. the straw that broke this camels back --- Biden's-Blue Enviro policy is to increase both CO2 and Ocean Pollution .. "Not in my back Yard - Dump it the Ocean"

And always remember -- so you won't be confused - My arguments against Trump are way better than yours.

 

On topic, the need to cast the controversy concerning whether the State or an American citizen should control her body need not be a hyper-partisan Sturm und Drang.

The majority of Americans reject the rampant statism, and the laws should reflect that consensus. Keep your bureaucrats out of other people's wombs.

[M]ajorities of Americans support maintaining Roe v. Wade, oppose states making it harder for abortion clinics to operate and see abortion primarily as a decision to be made by a woman and her doctor, not lawmakers.

Americans -- 60-27% -- say the high court should uphold Roe in this ABC News/Washington Post poll, including majorities of men and women, young adults and seniors, college graduates and those without degrees and whites and racial and ethnic minorities alike. It’s 62% among Catholics and steady across urban, suburban and rural residents.

​

 

No idea why you are pitching abortion to me .. as I am the leader of the pro choice side .. having the best arguments not only from a secular perspective .. but from a religious perspective .. roasting anti aborts like flies in a zapper .. but you don't show up on the Abortion thread too often .. however, if you did go there .. right now .. click on almost any OP .. you will find me crushing the rabble

Just remember "My body my choice" when it comes to the Vax mandates - and Blue's new found hatred for the ACLU .. essential liberty in genearal.

 

Typhoid Maryism - the right to endanger fellow citizens with impunity - is a distinct and disparate matter, of course, one that has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court:

1905 Supreme Court Case: The City of Cambridge had implemented a regulation that would levy a $5 fine on an any resident who failed to get the smallpox vaccine. A local pastor, Henning Jacobson... refused to get the vaccine or to pay the fine. He made arguments... claiming that this regulation interfered with his personal health decision. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cambridge, holding that “every well-ordered society” is obligated to keep its citizens safe and that sometimes — “under the pressure of great dangers” — citizens may be subject to “reasonable regulations.”​

The Statists who are fanatical about placing bureaucrats in control of wombs, rather than respecting such a private matter - a woman being allowed to make personal decisions in consultation with trusted loved ones, and medical and spiritual advisers - should look to Canada where the government is not an intruder.

 

The "Typhoid Mary" comparison an invalid comparison on many levels.

1) TM was orders of magnitude more dangerous .. the current Covid Varients are slightly more dangerous than the average flue to all of the people in Group A .. (those without conditions)

2) Even if it was as dangerous as TM .. there is no significant difference in transmission between vaxed and unvaxed. .. and

3) so while the vax for TM was a Vax .. this is not and further

4) This vax carries a significant risk of harm relative to other vaccines .. way bigger from what I have read .. but it is not debated in serious circles that the risk of harm from this so called "Vax" is bigger ..

5) while this "Vax" has not been put through the rigorous testing required to get other than "emergency approval" .. it has been given to enough people that we can do the meta-analysis .. and it is a massive fail - would never pass through the normal process.

and I can go on .. but this will suffice for now.

Get a valid argument. ​

 

You can attempt your rationales for individuals such as Typhoid Mary refusing to take reasonable measures to reduce their being a danger to society, but, as I noted, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of reasonableness. The court's ruling (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11) is interesting as well as eminently applicable. Here is a pertinent excerpt:

... The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others... Applying these principles to the present case, it is to be observed that the legislature of Massachusetts required the inhabitants of a city or town to be vaccinated only when, in the opinion of the board of health, that was necessary for the public health or the public safety. The authority to determine for all what ought to be done in such an emergency must have been lodged somewhere or in some body; and surely it was appropriate for the legislature to refer that question, in the first instance, to a board of health composed of persons residing in the locality affected, and appointed, presumably, because of their fitness to determine such questions. To invest such a body with authority over such matters was not an unusual, nor an unreasonable or arbitrary, requirement. Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members. ​

 

I did not rationalize Typhoid Mary -- Any Fool can put a false argument into opponents mouth and refute it .. aka strawman fallacy.

Surely you have something better .. Did you not understand what no significant difference in Transmission means ?

 

Even if you deny that Typhoid Mary also felt she had the right to endanger the public, you cannot deny the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the constitutional legitimacy of vaccines in the interest of public safety.

 

Quit spewing falsehoods in my good name ? ... never claimed Typhoid Mary had the right to endanger anyone .. nor denied Scotus.

Do you have anything other than false accusations .. aka Strawman fallacy .. this is two posts in a row now .. can you not come up with anything but fallacy .. come on .. surely you can do better.

This is not about Typhoid Mary -- This is about the big propaganda lie you keep regurgitating .. your unsupported claim that the not taking a vax poses a risk of harm significantly different those that do .. .. and the risk of harm from the vax that you want to force people to take via the heavy hand of the state --- in a raging state of authoritarian bliss.

 

Your fake claims that I accused you of defending Typhoid Mary's right to spread a deadly disease ("You can attempt your rationales for individuals such as Typhoid Mary refusing to take reasonable measures to reduce their being a danger to society") or are in denial of established law regarding state-mandated vaccination aside, I'll just note that my informed position on the matter is not an aberrant one:

Majority of Americans Favor President’s Vaccine Mandate: Poll
​

Nor concerning the thread's topic:
​

Majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade being upheld
​

I in no way suggest that numbering myself among most Americans in supporting these popular positions validates them. The law does that.

​

 

Your "informed" position on what matter ? -- I told you that vaxed transmit same as unvaxed. What does some poll on support for the vax mandate have to do the Scientific Reality that the vax does not stop or significantly prevent transmission ?

Vaccinated just as likely to spread delta variant within household as unvaccinated: study
https://www.wric.com/health/coronav...riant-within-household-as-unvaccinated-study/

Your claim that the unvaxed pose a danger to society .. more so than the unvaxed .. has been proven false. I realize that lying Biden and Fauci claimed otherwise many months ago .. and this is why you have the thoughts that you do .. but this question has been settled .. so quit repeating State Sponsored Propaganda and lies from these clowns .. Do not be part of the "Anti Science Crowd" in hyper partisan bliss mode.

 

Your scientific study differs from those of actual public health experts.

No, vaccinated people are not 'just as infectious' as unvaccinated people if they get Covid​

[V]accinated people clear the virus faster, with lower levels of virus overall,
and have less time with very high levels of virus present.Therefore, vaccinated
people are, on average, likely to be less contagious.​

Returning to the topic, most Americans oppose statist bureaucrats seizing control of wombs:

Overall, majorities of men and women and Americans across age, racial and education groups want the
Supreme Court to keep Roe v. Wade in place and want abortion to be legal in most cases in their state if Roe is overturned. ​

 

Numerous studies have shown otherwise and what you are quoting is a joke.
CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated

https://www.verywellhealth.com/cdc-report-vaccinated-breakthrough-infections-5195483

From your link ...

So the moron that wrote the headline you quoted ... is a fricken moron .. unable to comprehend what is written in the study he/she is citing from.

This would not be the first time I have seen a headline where they quote the date from the London Study .. but have no clue what it means .. and state falsehoods which are proven false in the numbers/information posted in the article .. just like these moron's have done.

 

As noted, "Vaccinated people are, on average, likely to be less contagious."

 

FWIW, while we pretend to care what the completely out-of-touch SCOTUS has to say on the matter, a Texas judge has finally ruled that Texas abortion law is at least state unconstitutional...

SNIP
A judge in Texas ruled on Thursday that a law prohibiting abortions after about six weeks violated the state's constitution because it allows private citizens to sue abortion providers.

State District Court Judge David Peeples was ruling on a contentious Texas law that bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat has been detected, usually after about six weeks and when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant.

Peeples ruled that the law unconstitutionally gave legal standing to people not injured, and was an "unlawful delegation of enforcement power to a private person."
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rules-citizen-enforcement-texas-025505651.html

 

And right on cue....

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/10/supreme-court-issues-opinion-on-texas-abortion-law-challenges.html

 

I hope women are seeing that loss of the right to their own body means loss of right to their own body.

Once the government owns your body and can force you to gestate what's to keep it from forcing you to have an abortion?

One day a pregnant woman will be told, sorry, you aren't rich enough, or pretty enough , or smart enough , or WHITE enough to have a baby , you must get an abortion....

 

Well said... If they haven't by now, they never will....

It's laughable that anybody thinks eliminating Roe is going to make abortion go away.... Didn't work real well with Prohibition and it won't here...

You cannot stop it, you can only make it harder and more unsafe....

 

Yup....and then there's the Really Stupid who think there were no abortions until RvW !!! Really...they exist..

And those are the dunces who think banning abortion will end abortion...

 

The Texas Law remains in effect.

"Abortion providers can now ask U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman to block S.B. 8. Pitman will swiftly grant their request by issuing an injunction against “executive licensing officials” tasked with enforcing the law, a decision that" may or may not "stand in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Texas’ clinics will presumably begin providing abortions again, though they are not protected from civil suits."

The Court's decision rejected the abortion providers primary theory: that providers could sue state court judges and clerks to prevent the docketing of S.B. 8 cases. The Court explained that these agents of the state enjoy “sovereign immunity,” the doctrine that states are generally immune from private lawsuits.

The Court "rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to sue Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, writing that Paxton has no authority to enforce S.B. 8. And even if Paxton did have such power," The Court "concluded, federal courts cannot “parlay” an injunction against an attorney general “into an injunction against any and all unnamed private persons who might seek to bring their own S.B. 8 suits.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/12/supreme-court-texas-abortion-sb8-gorsuch-sotomayor.html