Now, last month I was reliably informed that an “activist” Supreme Court had banned abortion.
So this just can not be: a referendum to repeal Kansas’s constitutional protection of abortion failed, and failed hard, yesterday.
Why, it’s almost as if all the Dobbs decision does it require pro-choicers to do what us Second Amendment activists have been doing for fifty years; go out and convince voters, and elect legislators, create a cultural push in favor of, uh, killing babies throughout all nine months of gestation and beyond.
Which, to some extent, is what happened in Kansas. Sort of:
The result is bad news, but supporters of the abortion license are giddily overreading it. The instant line is that the result shows that a backlash to Dobbs will be powerful this November. And it’s true that the referendum appears to have driven turnout in the state. This suggests to me a few potential advantages for pro-abortion Democrats this fall. They can do very well in places where a pro-life referendum is on the ballot, especially one that can be presented as effectively banning abortion without exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape; and maybe also in some places where legislators are on the verge of enacting such bans (or can be presented as being on the verge of it).
Will they be as successful in turning out their vote in the many places where those conditions are not present? Tuesday night’s result in Kansas will yield Democratic confidence about the answer to that question. It could turn out to be overconfidence.
And even in Kansas, I think pro-lifers ought to come back in a few years with another ballot initiative, this one establishing a gestational limit on abortion: at fifteen weeks, for example. There is no reason pro-lifers should take this deeply disappointing vote as the last word anywhere.
I said “sort of”:
There are two takeaways from this:
- Pro-lifers, after operating for fifty years with the paper ceiling of a “constitutional right” to abortion emanating from a penumbra, suddenly have to do the same thing pro-infantiders and 2nd Amendment people do; convince voters. There appear to be a fair number of Republicans in Kansas who fall somewhere in the middle, and need to be convinced.
- That’s a lot of Republican turnout, isn’t it? Looks like the Democrats are going to need abortion to turn out the base.
There was a story about a teenage woman working for a pro-life organization in Kansa, to encourage people to vote. She apparently stopped at one house where the woman that answered the door, told her that she probably didn’t want to talk to them. The woman turned to leave when door answering woman’s daughter comes out, of course yelling obscenities, and attacked her. She was punched several times until the mom came out and got her daughter under control.
With the Dobbs decision, Republicans have a success catastrophe on their hands. This is yet another reminder that Americans are not divided on the question — should abortion be banned. And the Dobbs decision, which allows for bans, is far outside the mainstream of US public opinion.
Now this is interesting.
https://www.lifenews.com/2022/08/02/georgia-residents-can-claim-unborn-children-as-dependents-on-their-state-taxes/?utm_source=activeengage&utm_medium=email
Maybe, finally, even Republicans are appalled by the national discussions of ectopic pregnancies and how far along a woman’s life-threatening sepsis must be for her to be deserving of an abortion.
This is hopeful. Abortion decisions can only belong to a woman and her doctor.
The right to abortion is not actually mentioned in the Kansas constitution. The right was invented by the KS supreme court in 2019, which said that the preamble to the KS constitution, Today, the court concluded Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, which states that “[a]ll men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” protects a woman’s right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy.
Seems like a poor decision, the anti-abortion folks in Kansas have to do some work.
FYI, Kansas allows abortion on demand to 22 weeks. “After that point, only in cases of life or severely compromised physical health may an abortion be performed,”
That has not changed.
^^ Americans are divided on when abortion should be allowed, but not on the foundational view that it should it be legal and accessible in this country.
I’m confident the farmers aren’t going to be killing their kids.
rAT squeaked: “This is hopeful. Abortion decisions can only belong to a woman and her doctor.”
Here’s hoping that discussion with your own grandspawn goes like this:
“What should I do Dr.?”
“Let’s flush that shit, right now.”
Emery, I’ve heard both male and female OB/GYN doctors discussing those “ectopic pregnancies” and “health risk to the mother”, stating in more than 20 years of practice, they had never had to take a baby due to a health risk to the mother. Only one had a patient with an ectopic pregnancy.
^^ I don’t disagree with you — my point was the optics. Perhaps Republicans have overreached. Turns out that more people think women should have the right to control their own bodies.
^ I’m more fixated with the optics of your progeny being flushed down Dr. Mengele’s toilet, rAT.
It’s uncannily wholesome.
Props to Kansas for doing what other states are too afraid to do: ask the voters.
Worth noting that the Kansas amendment was not only stuck in the primary, but was written to be deliberately confusing so that it would be difficult to know what “no” or “yes” actually meant, but the voters figured it out.
No, Emery, the pro death group put out deceptive ads, using faux clergy and funny; a message not to let government control your privacy and medical care. These rat bastards will stop at nothing to keep killing the unborn. Once again, they show both their absolute ignorance of the law and their rank hypocrisy. States are evil. The inept and corrupt Feds are good. You morons can’t have it both ways.
^^ Actually, anti-abortion Republicans in the Kansas legislature put this on the ballot. The are the ones to thank, although I doubt they’d appreciate the gesture. It backfired on them dramatically. When minority legislative rule on an issue is put to a vote of the public, this is what happens. Good.
“It backfired on them dramatically. ” Based on what measure?
Prove it Twerp!
Just give it time. People aren’t used to being given a choice about this — ironic, since the pro-abortion people used Roe and Casey to deny people the right to vote on abortion for 50 years.
Demand the aborted remains are photographed and available for all to see (with the butcher posing with his trophy) then take another vote!
It’s sad, but not surprising, as Kansas has been the center of a lot of this debate for a while. They have mandatory reporting of statutory rape, and have historically also hosted George Tiller, the late term abortionist murdered by Scott Roeder.
In this case, the lesson to be learned is that Kansas voters have historically been very willing to impose reasonable restrictions on abortion, but are not willing to end it altogether. You can work with that. Really, the big thing is to end state and federal subsidies–most clinics can not make ends meet on abortion alone. That’s why STD testing at Planned Parenthood is so important to them–it is all about bridging the gap between expenses and revenue.
A little poli-sci – most state constitutions are far, far easier to change then the US constitution. The Constitution of the state of Kansas is 42 pages long. Constitutions, in most states, are just another form of legislation. The Constitution of Minnesota, for example, has been amended over 120 times since it was adopted in 1857. Wisconsin’s constitution is 17 pages along and was last amended in 2020. Many state constitutions have features and language that is confusing or imprecise, and that language has never been tested in federal court.
“The Dobbs decision is far outside the mainstream of public opinion “. So? The court is supposed to rule based on the Constitution, not public opinion
The voters are perhaps smarter than either side gives them credit for. The Kansas Constitution does not specifically allow or prohibit abortions. I think tacking an amendment to the ballot in a primary election is a bad idea. The question of “rights” to any kind of health care is vague to non-existent. The legislature ought to legislate and the Supreme Court can rule on Constitutional questions. Of interest: the Kansas Constitution defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Trial begins for Minnesota woman who sued after being denied morning-after pill
https://www.startribune.com/trial-begins-for-minnesota-woman-who-sued-after-being-denied-morning-after-pill/600194582/
If we all live and die according to God’s plan, then virtually every pharmaceutical interferes with that plan. Pharmacists concerned about those plans should choose some other career.
There is a very simple solution for the pharmacist — if filling a valid, legal prescription violates his beliefs then he shouldn’t be employed as a pharmacist. He doesn’t get to substitute his religious beliefs for that of Ms. Anderson and the doctor that prescribed Ella.
“If we all live and die according to God’s plan”
Emery has finally and completely solved the free will versus predestination question!
That was satire, which is an appropriate response to a non-serious comment.
“Your honor, I had no choice but to murder that guy with premeditation. After all, we all live and die according to God’s plan!”
“I’m a Christian,” he said. “I believe in God. I love God. I try to live the way He would want me to live. That includes respecting every human being.” ~ Pharmacist George Badeaux
If I worked in a sporting goods store and someone wanted to buy ammunition to go hunting, or fishing lures to catch fish, can I refuse to sell them to them because I don’t believe in hunting or fishing? They are God’s creatures.
Mr. Badeaux choose the wrong career if he can’t/won’t dispense a legally prescribed drug. He should not be able to decide which prescriptions he will and will not fill.
Motte-and-bailey fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial (the “bailey”).[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]
Unfortunately for Emery, every state allows pharmacists not to fill a legally prescribed drug prescription. For example, if a pharmacist suspects that there will be a drug interaction issue, or if the written prescription is blurred or illegible. There are other reasons a pharmacist may refuse to fill a legal prescription as well.
So Emery beclowns himself once again.
^^ House crank 🤡
Mr Badeaux should not be allowed to substitute his beliefs for the job Thrifty White employed him to do, fill prescriptions. There are plenty of places for pharmacists to work where they won’t encounter having to dispense the morning after pill.
Point being, if you are hired to do a job, especially dispensing medication to people, you don’t get to pick and choose what prescription you get to fill based on your moral code.
Sigh — Moderation quarantine
Mr Badeaux should not be allowed to substitute his beliefs for the job Thrifty White employed him to do, fill prescriptions. There are plenty of places for pharmacists to work where they won’t encounter having to dispense the morning after pill.
Point being, if you are hired to do a job, especially dispensing medication to people, you don’t get to pick and choose what prescription you get to fill based on your moral code.
MBergs “user experience” Moderation Purgatory does not allow this conversation to continue.
Emery on August 4, 2022 at 10:20 am said:
. . .
Mr. Badeaux choose the wrong career if he can’t/won’t dispense a legally prescribed drug. He should not be able to decide which prescriptions he will and will not fill.
From the article Emery posted, apparently without reading it:
“The issue for the jury is not defendant’s constitutional rights,” the judge wrote. “It is whether he deliberately misled, obfuscated and blocked Ms. Anderson’s path to obtaining Ella.”
Badeaux will be allowed to explain his religious beliefs to the jury, the judge ruled, “but not in such a manner as to confuse the jury into thinking this is a religious freedom contest.”
“MBergs “user experience” Moderation Purgatory”
It’s not mine. It’s a tool called “Akismet”, which has “evolved” to have virtually no user control.
At all.
So it’s not my user experience.
As I’ve explained over and over in this space.
So the judge will not allow the religious freedom argument to be made by Badeaux, tho Emery insists that this what the lawsuit is all about.
Don’t go to Emery for legal advice, or for lessons on reading comprehension.
/“George Badeaux wasn’t trying to prevent a patient from using emergency birth control, he told a central Minnesota judge Wednesday. He just didn’t want to be part of the process.
/”I wasn’t seeking to interfere with what she wanted to do,” the rural Minnesota pharmacist testified in a court case over his refusal to fill a contraceptive prescription. “I was asking to be excused.”/“
/But much of Badeaux’s testimony Wednesday was devoted to explaining the religious beliefs that have led him to refuse to fill contraception prescriptions four times in his 40-year career./
/Matt Hutera, owner of the Thrifty White, testified that in his 11 years owning the drugstore, Anderson’s was the only prescription for Ella that ever came in.
Under cross-examination, Hutera admitted that there is no other drug whose delivery could be delayed by a conscientious objection by a pharmacist, potentially an important indication that Anderson’s sex was the key factor in the refusal to fill her prescription./
So now Emery is cut-n-pasting from a different strib article than the article he linked to.
Here is one of the things that appeared in this article that Emery chose not to quote:
” In a pretrial order, Aitkin County District Judge David Hermerding ruled that Badeaux’s religious rights are not the issue at stake in the case.”
More obfuscation and red herrings from woolly:
[..“every state allows pharmacists not to fill a legally prescribed drug prescription. For example, if a pharmacist suspects that there will be a drug interaction issue, or if the written prescription is blurred or illegible. There are other reasons a pharmacist may refuse to fill a legal prescription as well.”
But that’s not what is at issue here is it ….
Uh, yes, because you wrote “Mr. Badeaux choose the wrong career if he can’t/won’t dispense a legally prescribed drug. He should not be able to decide which prescriptions he will and will not fill.”
Pharmacists do this all of the time.
As far as I can tell, four people think that the Badeaux case is about religious freedom: Mr. Badeaux, his lawyer, the Strib reporter, and Emery.
^^ Using the metric of: “as far as I can tell” — tell us exactly why did the pharmacist refuse to sell his customer her prescription??