The Conservative War On Women

A pretty good rule of thumb is that if you make something illegal, you're only increasing demand and prices. Doesn't really surprise me that abortions follow that as well.

Mmm. Actually, you just decrease supply by making it illegal. The demand drops, but it doesn't drop as much, and the prices climb. (Prohibition alcohol, etc.)

In this case the issue isn't the price climbing due to lack of supply despite decreasing demand, it's that the demand is actually increasing, which is a different phenomenon entirely. And the increase in demand is driven by restricting education and access to contraceptives, which results directly in higher numbers of unwanted pregnancies. (Higher demand, despite the high price due to lack of supply.)

I.. I guess this goes here?

Apparently women using birth control turns some men gay and others to bestiality.

Young Turks summary

Original video

If their strategy is to win by dumbfounding us with the level of crap they can spew then I suppose they're on the right track.

IMAGE(http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa237/dbrent19/Untitled.png)

Brought to you by The Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters?

Oh and simple fact checking. 99% of all women who had sex, used contraception. 81.9% used the pill, 93.4 used condoms. That is on the year. Month to Month surveys are 62% of women are using any method, 17.1% use the pill. So 100 percent wrong in the first minute, great start.

From the CDC.

We are talking googling National Survey of Family Growth and clicking the first result to see they are lying.

KingGorilla wrote:

Brought to you by The Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters?

CONTRACEPTIVES ARE TURNING US INTO MUTANTS!

NEWS AT 11PM FOR THE SHOCKING TRUTH BEHIND HOW THOSE PILLS YOUR DAUGHTER IS TAKING IS TURNING HER INTO.....

IMAGE(http://www.marveldirectory.com/pictures/individuals/w_1d/wolverine2.gif)

THE WOLVERINE!

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-expo...

Some people just disgust me, and I don't mean ex-porn stars.

(I never lived in Roanoke, but I was in wdbj7's coverage area so I thought I'd post.)

"They must exhibit the highest degree of trustworthiness and public esteem since they will be dealing with citizens when they are most vulnerable, or entering citizens' homes and businesses under emergency circumstances."

Sounds like whoever wrote that letter has seen way too much bad porn. What, exactly, do they think is going to happen when she enters a citizen's home or business?

OG_slinger wrote:
"They must exhibit the highest degree of trustworthiness and public esteem since they will be dealing with citizens when they are most vulnerable, or entering citizens' homes and businesses under emergency circumstances."

Sounds like whoever wrote that letter has seen way too much bad porn. What, exactly, do they think is going to happen when she enters a citizen's home or business?

She fixes the cable?

I think the crack about her damaging recruitment and how they don't trust her around the younger members if the squad were worse.

It's infuriating. We hear them spouting about getting people to get out of that sort of life and make better choices, but the minute they do, they're right there doing their level best to make sure they can't leave it behind.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...

That probably goes here.

There's no word in this article about political bent, but this is the kind of thinking that has landed us in this mess.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/S...

Jesus wept.

bnpederson wrote:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...

That probably goes here.

I'm curious as to what exactly this CPC advertises to coax women into walking through those doors in the first place? Maybe I don't quite grasp what this article is saying, but do women go to these places in hopes to find connections or assistance with abortion options?

The Conformist wrote:
bnpederson wrote:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...

That probably goes here.

I'm curious as to what exactly this CPC advertises to coax women into walking through those doors in the first place? Maybe I don't quite grasp what this article is saying, but do women go to these places in hopes to find connections or assistance with abortion options?

A dirty trick some places play on women is to lie to them about how far along in their pregnancy they are. They give them misinformation so they think they have longer to seek a legal abortion than they actually do. Women then decide to get an abortion before the legal cut-off date, only to find out they missed it because they were mislead.

CheezePavilion wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
bnpederson wrote:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...

That probably goes here.

I'm curious as to what exactly this CPC advertises to coax women into walking through those doors in the first place? Maybe I don't quite grasp what this article is saying, but do women go to these places in hopes to find connections or assistance with abortion options?

A dirty trick some places play on women is to lie to them about how far along in their pregnancy they are. They give them misinformation so they think they have longer to seek a legal abortion than they actually do. Women then decide to get an abortion before the legal cut-off date, only to find out they missed it because they were mislead.

This and the name alone creates intentional confusion. They think they're going in for one kind of service and then they get pressed to keep the pregnancy and get counseling that's one-sided.

There's no word in this article about political bent, but this is the kind of thinking that has landed us in this mess.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/S......

Absolutely no words to describe this. Unbelievable, incredible, outrageous, somehow do not suffice.

I read the opinion and the undercurrent of this seems to be that the state can't prove rape because she can't testify in any kind of complex way - she's non-verbal and severely disabled.

So they prosecuted him under the definition statute that applies to guys who assault unconscious women or women who can't communicate. Since she is capable of communicating displeasure, the court said, that section of the statute can't apply.

They went with the letter of the law, which is now going to have to be rewritten to protect women like this in the future. I understand it from a legal perspective, but jesus it is the stuff of despair.

Sounds like whoever wrote that letter has seen way too much bad porn. What, exactly, do they think is going to happen when she enters a citizen's home or business?
iaintgotnopants wrote:

She fixes the cable?

Don't be fatuous, iaintgotnopants.

Funkenpants wrote:

I read the opinion and the undercurrent of this seems to be that the state can't prove rape because she can't testify in any kind of complex way - she's non-verbal and severely disabled.

So they prosecuted him under the definition statute that applies to guys who assault unconscious women or women who can't communicate. Since she is capable of communicating displeasure, the court said, that section of the statute can't apply.

They went with the letter of the law, which is now going to have to be rewritten to protect women like this in the future. I understand it from a legal perspective, but jesus it is the stuff of despair.

Yeah, this is a flaw of the prosecution here and the legislator crafting its law. When she essentially testified, the argument is on shaky ground that she was immobile and unable to speak. They tried him under a part of the law meant for women assaulted while in a coma or under anesthesia.

Much of the language of the statute has the charge being a lesser felony fitting the facts here.

Implicit here is that Connecticut has a history of active NO being needed in rape cases. The laws are replete with mentions of ability to consent, where other stats would have "Without Consent." IE, by the law a woman has to say no to make it rape, or there needs to be evidence of threats/coercion.

While we are getting closer to a kind of uniformity in criminal codes, we still have a long way to go. But even as the states get to the model codes of justice, they are still saddled with their own common laws if their legislators craft laws with serious gaps or deficiencies.

Funkenpants wrote:

They went with the letter of the law, which is now going to have to be rewritten to protect women like this in the future. I understand it from a legal perspective, but jesus it is the stuff of despair.

Popehat wrote an interesting article describing how much the prosecution f**ked this up and why the ruling, while regrettable, was the right one:

the article wrote:

The Court also repeatedly criticized the prosecutor's decision to charge the case under this particular statute

[...]

I'm outraged that the prosecution made a lousy and seemingly inexplicable call. I'm outraged that someone who sexually assaulted a profoundly handicapped woman goes free because of incompetence. But I'm not outraged that the state has to prove that you're guilty of the specific crime you're charged with to put you in prison. That's fundamental to due process.

It doesn't make it any less horrific and sad, but it does put the court's ruling in a perspective that at least explains why it doesn't match the common sense reaction to the broad strokes of the case.

Someone call Dexter.

You know it is interesting because he cannot be tried again in court but I think the details of the case should be used against him. (is this legal?) I wouldn't give someone like that a job and when he fills out an application he has to say that he was charged with a felony. Hopefully anyone who looks it up can read the ruling.

But that requires people to read...

It might be more important to shame the f*ck out of the Connecticut legislature so they change the legal definition of rape and reword the associated laws so this can never happen again.

fangblackbone wrote:

You know it is interesting because he cannot be tried again in court but I think the details of the case should be used against him. (is this legal?) I wouldn't give someone like that a job and when he fills out an application he has to say that he was charged with a felony. Hopefully anyone who looks it up can read the ruling.

But that requires people to read...

It might feel like a little bit of justice in his particular case, but it's extremely easy to see how that could be abused.

Do you have to say if you've been charged with a felony or just if you were convicted? Charged is pretty f*cked up, if that's the case.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Do you have to say if you've been charged with a felony or just if you were convicted? Charged is pretty f*cked up, if that's the case.

Pretty sure it's just convicted. I think a lot ask if you've been arrested, but I don't think you're legally required to list anything other than convictions. IANAL.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Do you have to say if you've been charged with a felony or just if you were convicted? Charged is pretty f*cked up, if that's the case.

Pretty sure it's just convicted. I think a lot ask if you've been arrested, but I don't think you're legally required to list anything other than convictions. IANAL.

I would seriously hope not.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Do you have to say if you've been charged with a felony or just if you were convicted? Charged is pretty f*cked up, if that's the case.

Pretty sure it's just convicted. I think a lot ask if you've been arrested, but I don't think you're legally required to list anything other than convictions. IANAL.

I would seriously hope not.

Worst thing I have ever done to a co-worker, some time ago:

Them: "What does the acronym I A N A L mean?"

Me: "I dunno, maybe you should Google it."

Safesearch is mandatory these days, oddly.

Bloo Driver wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Do you have to say if you've been charged with a felony or just if you were convicted? Charged is pretty f*cked up, if that's the case.

Pretty sure it's just convicted. I think a lot ask if you've been arrested, but I don't think you're legally required to list anything other than convictions. IANAL.

I would seriously hope not.

Worst thing I have ever done to a co-worker, some time ago:

Them: "What does the acronym I A N A L mean?"

Me: "I dunno, maybe you should Google it."

Safesearch is mandatory these days, oddly.