Nice way to frame the question, Did you know the Roe (from Roe vs Wade) lied about being raped when she asked for an abortion? Also, if you got raped, then the easy solution is that there is a "morning after pill", that you will be given when you report that you've been raped.
i think its more misinformation to call your organization "planned parenthood", when the entire purpose is to eliminate parenthood, than it is for an organization to call itself a "pregnancy center".
So the one who carries the baby for 9 months gets to make the decision for both parties for the next 18 years?
The really sad part is people like you who believe other people’s choices are up to you.Actually that would be women, men don't really get a "choice", when are going to be "pro-choice" for men?
The real reason why nobody has passed such "privacy" legislation, is that its nothing more than a content based restriction of speech, not limited to the traditional confines of the first amendment.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-895
Yes. In a 7-to-1 opinion, the Court held that the First Amendment protects willing speakers and willing listeners equally. The Court noted that in cases of commercial speech, such as price advertising, freedom of speech protections apply just as they would to noncommercial speech. Even speech that is sold for profit, or involves financial solicitations, is protected. The Court concluded that although the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy has a legitimate interest in preserving professionalism among its members, it may not do so at the expense of public knowledge about lawful competitive pricing terms.
Btw, what is the "targeted misinformation" my senator is talking about? You can find the Wisconsin Right to Life youtube channel, and its all just emotional guilt tripping videos, and of course Wyden didn't explain what / why its misinformation, and he seems to be the primary source of the claim.
Communists are always unable to comprehend that the government that can give you anything, has to be able to take it away from someone else, and more often than not they're taking it away from you.
I tried to click on the link to the "proven" discrimination at AT&T but its a broken link, and I assume its going to be some advocacy group with some bullshit claims The fact that Karl has to lump together black and low income groups together, is indicative that there was no racial discrimination in the first place, rather business decisions about profitability, and racial disparities in income or interest in broadband. Had there been discrimination, it would have (and should have) been litigated in court, and there been a court judgement. What is more likely is that Karl wants to be racist, and make other people pay to subsidize black people. His argument is akin to the claim that black people read less books, and are less able to afford books, so the book publishers should be giving books to black people who cant afford them. The reason why the government cannot mandate this is because this itself is racial discrimination, in addition to a violation of the takings clause.
The government doesn't get to decide who is a journalist e.g. The government wants to claim that Julian Assange is not a journalist, thus isn't entitled to receive "privacy" violating information, we better have him jailed for "invasion of privacy" right? The supreme court has repeatedly said that news organizations have the right to publish unlawfully obtained information. Moreover lawyers are literally "officers of the court", and just providing lawyers with information, such as how the voting machine security is so bad they got the passwords, doesn't mean that the organization doesn't qualify as a journalist.
CNN spread lies about the covington catholic school children being racists against native americans, leading to them being sued for the harassment of their kids, despite there being evidence that the kids were being harassed by the native americans and the black hebrew israelites, which they settled and paid out to the family instead of opting to go to trial.
The US has arrested and criminally tried a head of state Manuel Noriega of Panama who never stepped foot in the US or directly ordered any crimes to occur in the US, simply because they were mad about losing control of the Panama canal.
The problem is that we leave too much up to discretion, such that people cannot know ahead of time, what they're going to get into trouble for. The solution is we need to turn the law into formal deductive logic, and have it ran by artificial intelligence. unironically.
there is sort of a "catch all" jurisdictional statute, which states that the federal courts have the jurisdiction neccesary to "effectuate its judgements" I think the term is "in rem" jurisdiction.
She works for the system, and this is a feature not a bug, Phil Knight (board chair) is a major donor to the democratic party and local politics, and regularly drops millions into local political campaigns, often in exchange for being granted 30 year tax exemptions for example.
a Texas Judge jailed journalists who refused to turn over sources, who exposed that the Californian election infrastructure was being hosted in China, the judges are only there to protect the system and insofar as they do have justice is to protect the legitimacy of the government. You forget that the US sanctioned members of the International Criminal Court and seized their assets, for merely suggesting that the US participates in war crimes.
Oregon Judges disregarding the First Amendment without publishing their legal reasons because of political expediency? I'm absolutely astounded, what if its actually a semi-regular occurrence. Maybe someone should look into this!
I thought this website was about tech, I dont know why there are so many non-tech social commentaries in it.
0.6 % is very close to the 0.5% error rate that I would expect in most statistical samplings, and it does not stand for the proposition that the cops are racists. You will notice that in all of these studies, they don't actually try to get to the truth of how many of the searches were justified legally, or whether the traffic stops are justified legally. Instead the authors message is, black people are given traffic stops, and the traffic stops are bad for the stopped person, and "Traffic stops are almost never about moving violations", despite "no longer able to perform most pretextual stops". Thus concluding that its racist to stop black people for “significantly interfere with public safety” more than average.
Under the First Amendment, franklin would be legally responsible for the libeling, which he placed in his newspaper, but not for printing them separate for the customer to distribute. Reflecting that the newspaper is not a common carrier, but the printing press is a common carrier.
This logic extends to the current The New York Times, which no person is trying to allege is a common carrier, and also to social media websites who much like the postal service, which deliver "messages" from one inbox to another, and should be treated like a common carrier.
Being gay cuts your lifetime by 9 years, and reduces your fertility rate, which is an objective statement on population statistics, rather than some methodological bias.
As Dr. Cummings has explained in interviews, there are recently no studies on the pro reparative therapy side, because of the political hot potato. However he reports in his interviews that conversion therapy works quite well when he was running his facility.