As much as the current herd of Republican SCOTUS extremists CLAIM to focus on the original intent of the Constitution, as with abortion, they consistently misstate the actual historical practices that were in place at the time of the enactment of the 2nd amendment.
Guns and really weapons of ALL SORTS (including knives) were EXTREMELY regulated in the 18th century (which makes sense when you consider the fact that governments were by and large autocratic at that time, so royals and landowners who had some limited say in the government, had a strong vested interest in preventing the common person from being armed).
And that's even ignoring the fact that these "originalists" or "textualists" have no problem just ignoring the bloody text of the 2nd amendment in the first place, which clearly situates the right in the context of a "well regulated militia", with "militia" at the time being understood as the equivalent of each state's national guard.
There's absolutely no change to the Second Amendment that could pass in 35 states. Meanwhile, wait until they overturn Griswold, see how popular the Supreme Court is when a good chunk of women in the country can't buy birth control.
It doesn't apply to prophylactics as a class, just specific drugs. Men and women alike would be forbidden from buying Lutera; for example, satisfying the requirements you mention.
Maybe the reality of unplanned babies will induce a few to pull the "D" lever, but just lie about having done so as to "save face"? My understanding is that, before Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, many married women were seeking abortions because they simply couldn't handle another child to raise. It's easy to sit in judgement of "sluts", but when you suddenly find yourself occupying the space you had solely assigned to "promiscuous women" (it's never the men...), perhaps some minds will change? I know, I'm verging on optimism, which is a slippery slope.
Having an abortion because you canтАЩt properly support a child or another child is not something that only happened before Griswold and Roe. ItтАЩs always been a major reason why women have an abortion.
Very true. The only reason I specified prior to those cases is because, since those cases, American women have grown accustomed to the access of the options these cases afforded them. Perhaps the sudden loss of those things will change some minds, just as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization riled up the pro-choice and anti-abortion crowds; while there's been decades of talk on both sides, it wasn't until the law actually changed and peoples' lives were effected that everyone truly mobilized.
Well, after all, didn't you see how she was dressed? She was *asking* for it! He's just a victim of hormones and her vile temptress ways. For those Fringe fans out there:
Dr. Walter Bishop : It's all because of that temptress; she tricked my son with her carnal manipulations, and he fell right into her vagenda.
Kaitlin Collins did as well as she could. She was being tested for a primetime slot. I think she will have to wait until her hair grows down to her knees. The execs seem to like their women to have long, swirling hair and short skirts. It worked for Fox News. NPR still has 80 year-olds.
It'd be quicker to fix the Supreme Court so we can go back to the not-insane interpretation we had for some 200-odd years.
Agreed.
As much as the current herd of Republican SCOTUS extremists CLAIM to focus on the original intent of the Constitution, as with abortion, they consistently misstate the actual historical practices that were in place at the time of the enactment of the 2nd amendment.
Guns and really weapons of ALL SORTS (including knives) were EXTREMELY regulated in the 18th century (which makes sense when you consider the fact that governments were by and large autocratic at that time, so royals and landowners who had some limited say in the government, had a strong vested interest in preventing the common person from being armed).
And that's even ignoring the fact that these "originalists" or "textualists" have no problem just ignoring the bloody text of the 2nd amendment in the first place, which clearly situates the right in the context of a "well regulated militia", with "militia" at the time being understood as the equivalent of each state's national guard.
Outside of waiting for conveniently timed deaths, I'm not sure there's a fix that is going to play well with the electorate.
There's absolutely no change to the Second Amendment that could pass in 35 states. Meanwhile, wait until they overturn Griswold, see how popular the Supreme Court is when a good chunk of women in the country can't buy birth control.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but - doesn't the gender equality act prohibit this? If men are allowed access to prophylactics, women must be also.
It doesn't apply to prophylactics as a class, just specific drugs. Men and women alike would be forbidden from buying Lutera; for example, satisfying the requirements you mention.
How about a counter -offensive and campaign against MEN being able to buy birth control? After all, fair's fair.
I sort of feel like a ban on Viagra et al. would be more apropos, to say nothing of less likely to cause permanent surprises for bystanders.
I fear that even that won't make many folks overcome their reluctance to pull the "D" lever.
Maybe the reality of unplanned babies will induce a few to pull the "D" lever, but just lie about having done so as to "save face"? My understanding is that, before Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, many married women were seeking abortions because they simply couldn't handle another child to raise. It's easy to sit in judgement of "sluts", but when you suddenly find yourself occupying the space you had solely assigned to "promiscuous women" (it's never the men...), perhaps some minds will change? I know, I'm verging on optimism, which is a slippery slope.
Having an abortion because you canтАЩt properly support a child or another child is not something that only happened before Griswold and Roe. ItтАЩs always been a major reason why women have an abortion.
Very true. The only reason I specified prior to those cases is because, since those cases, American women have grown accustomed to the access of the options these cases afforded them. Perhaps the sudden loss of those things will change some minds, just as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization riled up the pro-choice and anti-abortion crowds; while there's been decades of talk on both sides, it wasn't until the law actually changed and peoples' lives were effected that everyone truly mobilized.
Some women are so promiscuous they have sex with men. The men are just helpless and have no responsibility for the pregnancy.
Well, after all, didn't you see how she was dressed? She was *asking* for it! He's just a victim of hormones and her vile temptress ways. For those Fringe fans out there:
Dr. Walter Bishop : It's all because of that temptress; she tricked my son with her carnal manipulations, and he fell right into her vagenda.
Kaitlin Collins did as well as she could. She was being tested for a primetime slot. I think she will have to wait until her hair grows down to her knees. The execs seem to like their women to have long, swirling hair and short skirts. It worked for Fox News. NPR still has 80 year-olds.
Not so. Amna Nawaz for example. No more 80 yr olds/
You joke of course, but this is a theme in several major religions on this particular planet.
You go first!