The Supremes

[Goofyboy 3293]

There is no way many doctors will refuse care for a woman who miscarries.  It's just completely counter to their oath and their ethical standards.
The simulation has entered a positive feedback loop.  It's stunning.  I have hope that the courts won't uphold such a bizarre and primitive law, but hope fucks me over often these days.

I’ve given up hope.

[sidis 9832]

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is a good post and the type of critique that could be fairly leveled at like 99% of internet discourse, but Ana has a history of trolling when it comes to abortion debates here so I think the not-quite-on-point reactions are understandable. 

i understand that...and some benefit of the doubt from my perspective has been lost there.  i also understand how observing the trajectory of the thread from the post opining that the parental notification would undermine its favorability to a broader segment to "fuck you, you're not allowed an opinion" can resign one to saying fuck it, nothing to do here. 

i also understand that if i was a woman who believed in the importance of federal protection of abortion rights right now, i wouldn't be feeling like the environment is not infused entirely with hostility.  i would be apoplectic and out for blood.

[Brisketexan 105154]

16 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. It’s estimated almost 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.

We're gonna need a whole additional law enforcement agency to investigate all of these suspected criminals.  Protecting sacred human lives requires nothing less.

[Brisketexan 105154]

9 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

I’ve given up hope.

Hope is for suckers.

Remember the rules of this timeline: 1) it always gets worse, and 2) there is no bottom.

[Sawbonz 27578]

40 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Oregon, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont, Alaska, and Colorado.

Plenty of others have de facto abortion on demand up until birth.  Just go to a doctor (or nurse practitioner in many states through things) and claim emotional distress.  In many states you can do this through telemedicine with a doctor or nurse practitioner you've never even seen.  Similar to getting a prescription for medical marijuana -- just check the box and collect your prescription.

So that would be states that allow post-viability abortions for "health" instead of those that limit the exception for "physical health" or "life".  These states include New York, California, AZ, CT, DE, Hawaii, IL, Maine, MD, MA, Minnesota, Nevada, VA, and Washington.

And your party’s answer to that is trying to make rubbers illegal. Imagine if your party came out with a law allowing abortions through the first trimester as well as free and easy access to birth control

[Captainant 27680]

33 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

There is no way many doctors will refuse care for a woman who miscarries.  It's just completely counter to their oath and their ethical standards.

In the great state of Texas, we fucking jailed a women who had just miscarried. The law doesn't matter, these barbarians want to control and punish any woman that has the temerity to willingly or unwillingly fail to carry a fertilized egg to term

[jimmyjazz 45975]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

In the great state of Texas, we fucking jailed a women who had just miscarried. The law doesn't matter, these barbarians want to control and punish any woman that has the temerity to willingly or unwillingly fail to carry a fertilized egg to term

I understand that.  I don't believe, when it all shakes out, Texas or any other state will make it a crime to provide necessary medical care to a patient.

I fully realize the barbarism of the far right.  At some point (which clearly won't include abortion) there will be sufficient pushback.  Criminalizing a D&C after a miscarriage would be analogous to criminalizing bypass surgery for a heart patient.  It's just so far beyond the pale -- even beyond the insane rollback of Roe V Wade -- I don't see how it will stand up in court.  Even the current SCOTUS.

[Goofyboy 3293]

I understand that.  I don't believe, when it all shakes out, Texas or any other state will make it a crime to provide necessary medical care to a patient.
I fully realize the barbarism of the far right.  At some point (which clearly won't include abortion) there will be sufficient pushback.  Criminalizing a D&C after a miscarriage would be analogous to criminalizing bypass surgery for a heart patient.  It's just so far beyond the pale -- even beyond the insane rollback of Roe V Wade -- I don't see how it will stand up in court.  Even the current SCOTUS.

Then you’re trying to hard to believe there is anyone with any sense of science or understanding running the republicans. Louisiana has a bill ready to go outlawing miscarriages and IUDs.

[Captainant 27680]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Criminalizing a D&C after a miscarriage would be analogous to criminalizing bypass surgery for a heart patient.  It's just so far beyond the pale -- even beyond the insane rollback of Roe V Wade -- I don't see how it will stand up in court.  Even the current SCOTUS.

You're telling me that when president desantis is trolling the libz for those sweet delicious tears he's not going to just do the illegal thing and ignore the courts? Exactly like what he's doing with florida redistricting right now?

I have less than zero faith the right as a whole is seeking policy outcomes. They want to antagonize and troll, and it doesn't matter what about. As long as it gets a reaction they'll keep doubling down. It's the same tiny dick bully energy we've been seeing from all the resident redhats and MAGApoligists

[DigglerontheHoof 21202]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I understand that.  I don't believe, when it all shakes out, Texas or any other state will make it a crime to provide necessary medical care to a patient.

I fully realize the barbarism of the far right.  At some point (which clearly won't include abortion) there will be sufficient pushback.  Criminalizing a D&C after a miscarriage would be analogous to criminalizing bypass surgery for a heart patient.  It's just so far beyond the pale -- even beyond the insane rollback of Roe V Wade -- I don't see how it will stand up in court.  Even the current SCOTUS.

just wait until a pregnant obese woman has a heart attack and miscarries.  She'll be charged w/ murder in some backwater state like Mississippi or Texas. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

There is no way many doctors will refuse care for a woman who miscarries.  It's just completely counter to their oath and their ethical standards.

Correct. 

[Captainant 27680]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Correct. 

A woman in Texas last month was reported BY HER HOSPITAL NURSE to the police who arrested her under suspicion of getting an abortion. The police went on to arrest and process a woman WHO JUST MISCARRIED into the local jail.

The only reason the woman was released from custody and the MURDER charges were dropped is because the state law specifically prohibited what the police did.

But the police still did it. The hospital still violated that woman's rights to healthcare privacy under HIPAA. The woman was still treated like a criminal.

You're lying to yourself if you don't think women aren't going to be denied care and criminalized for seeking care after a miscarriage. It's already happened. And denying that is only going to give cover to the next time it happens.

[Sawbonz 27578]

26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I understand that.  I don't believe, when it all shakes out, Texas or any other state will make it a crime to provide necessary medical care to a patient.

I fully realize the barbarism of the far right.  At some point (which clearly won't include abortion) there will be sufficient pushback.  Criminalizing a D&C after a miscarriage would be analogous to criminalizing bypass surgery for a heart patient.  It's just so far beyond the pale -- even beyond the insane rollback of Roe V Wade -- I don't see how it will stand up in court.  Even the current SCOTUS.

What Texas did is worse. They made it a civil statute and people can be sued by whistleblowers. A woman who was actively miscarrying had to take a flight to Colorado for medical care because no one in Texas would help her because of this new law.What Texas did is worse.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19103]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Correct. 

O Rly?

Quote

As the Supreme Court appears poised to return abortion regulation to the states, recent experience in Texas illustrates that medical care for miscarriages and dangerous ectopic pregnancies would also be threatened if restrictions become more widespread.

One Texas law passed last year lists several medications as abortion-inducing drugs and largely bars their use for abortion after the seventh week of pregnancy. But two of those drugs, misoprostol and mifepristone, are the only drugs recommended in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines for treating a patient after an early pregnancy loss.

The other miscarriage treatment is a procedure described as surgical uterine evacuation to remove the pregnancy tissue — the same approach as for an abortion.

"The challenge is that the treatment for an abortion and the treatment for a miscarriage are exactly the same," said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in early pregnancy loss.

Miscarriages occur in roughly 1 out of 10 pregnancies. Some people experience loss of pregnancy at home and don't require additional care, other than emotional support, said Dr. Tony Ogburn, who chairs the OB-GYN department at the University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine. But in other situations, he said, providers may need to intervene to stop bleeding and make sure no pregnancy tissue remains, as a guard against infection.

Dr. Lauren Thaxton, an OB-GYN and assistant professor at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas-Austin, has already heard about local patients who have been miscarrying, and couldn't get a pharmacy to fill their misoprostol prescription.

"The pharmacy has said, 'We don't know whether or not you might be using this medication for the purposes of abortion,'" she said.

Thaxton, who supervises the obstetrics-gynecology residents who have seen these patients, said sometimes the prescribing clinic will intervene, but it takes the patient longer to get the medication. Other times patients don't report the problem and miscarry on their own, she said, but without medication they risk additional bleeding.

Under another new Texas abortion law, someone who "aids or abets" an abortion after cardiac activity can be detected — typically around six weeks — can be subject to at least a $10,000 fine per occurrence. Anyone can bring that civil action, posing a quandary for physicians and other providers. How do they follow the latest guidelines when numerous other people — from other medical professionals to friends and family members — can question their intent: Are they helping care for a miscarriage or facilitating an abortion?

Sometimes patients don't realize that they have lost the pregnancy until they come in for a checkup and no cardiac activity can be detected, said Dr. Emily Briggs, a family physician who delivers babies in New Braunfels, Texas. At that point, the patient can opt to wait until the bleeding starts and the pregnancy tissue is naturally released, Briggs said.

For some, that's too difficult, given the emotions surrounding the pregnancy loss, she said. Instead, the patient may choose medication or a surgical evacuation procedure, which Briggs said may prove necessary anyway to avoid a patient becoming septic if some of the tissue remains in the uterus.

 

But now in Texas, the new laws are creating uncertainties that may deter some doctors and other providers from offering optimal miscarriage treatment.

These situations can create significant moral distress for patients and providers, said Bryn Esplin, a bioethicist and assistant professor of medical education at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth. "Any law that creates a hesitancy for physicians to uphold the standard of care for a patient has a cascade of harmful effects both for the patient but also for everyone else," said Esplin.

It's an emotional and legal dilemma that potentially faces not just obstetricians and midwives, but also family physicians, emergency physicians, pharmacists, and anyone else who might become involved with pregnancy care. And Ogburn, who noted that he was speaking personally and not for the medical school, worries that fears about the Texas laws have already delayed care.

"I wouldn't say this is true for our practice," he said. "But I have certainly heard discussion among physicians that they're very hesitant to do any kind of intervention until they're absolutely certain that this is not possibly a viable pregnancy — even though the amount of bleeding would warrant intervening because it's a threat to the mother's life."

John Seago, legislative director for Texas Right to Life, described this type of hesitation as "an awful misunderstanding of the law." Even before the passage of the two bills, existing Texas law stated that the act is not an abortion if it involves the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy — which most commonly occurs when the pregnancy grows in the fallopian tube — or to "remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion," he said, pointing to the statute. Another area of Texas law that Seago cited provides an exception to the state's abortion restrictions if the mother's life is in danger or she's at "serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function" unless an abortion is performed.

"It is a pro-life position to allow physicians to make those life-and-death decisions," Seago said. "And that may mean in certain circumstances protecting the mother in this situation and the child passing away."

But interpretation of the laws is still causing challenges to care. At least several OB-GYNs in the Austin area received a letter from a pharmacy in late 2021 saying it would no longer fill the drug methotrexate in the case of ectopic pregnancy, citing the recent Texas laws, said Dr. Charlie Brown, an Austin-based obstetrician-gynecologist who provided a copy to KHN. Methotrexate also is listed in the Texas law passed last year.

Ectopic pregnancy develops in an estimated 2% of reported pregnancies. Methotrexate or surgery are the only two options listed in the medical guidelines to prevent the fallopian tubes from rupturing and causing dangerous bleeding.

"Ectopic pregnancies can kill people," said Brown, a district chair for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, representing Texas.

Tom Mayo, a professor of law at Southern Methodist University's Dedman School of Law in Dallas, understands why some in Texas' pharmacy community might be nervous. "The penalties are quite draconian," he said, noting that someone could be convicted of a felony.

However, Mayo said that his reading of the law allows for the use of methotrexate to treat an ectopic pregnancy. In addition, he said, other Texas laws and the Roe v. Wade decision provide an exception to permit abortion if a pregnant person's life is in danger.

Since the Texas laws include a stipulation that there must be intent to induce an abortion, Mayo said that he'd advise physicians and other clinicians to closely document the rationale for medical care, whether it's to treat a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy.

But Prager believes that the laws in Texas — and perhaps elsewhere soon — could boost physicians' vulnerability to medical malpractice lawsuits. Consider the patient whose miscarriage care is delayed and develops a serious infection and other complications, Prager said. "And they decide to sue for malpractice," she said. "They can absolutely do that."

Texas providers are still adjusting to other ripple effects that affect patient care. Dr. Jennifer Liedtke, a family physician in Sweetwater, Texas, who delivers about 175 babies annually, no longer sends misoprostol prescriptions to the local Walmart. Since the new laws took effect, Liedtke said, the pharmacist a handful of times declined to provide the medication, citing the new law — despite Liedtke writing the prescription to treat a miscarriage. Walmart officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Since pharmacists rotate through that Walmart, Liedtke decided to send those prescriptions to other pharmacies rather than attempt to sort out the misunderstanding anew each time.

"It's hard to form a relationship to say, 'Hey look, I'm not using this for an elective abortion,'" she said. "'I'm just using this because this is not a viable pregnancy.'"

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. It is an editorially independent operating program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation).

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45975]

Jesus Christ, people.  Read what I wrote.  I don't think this aspect of these laws will ULTIMATELY stand up in court.  I certainly care about what they are TRYING to do, but years down the road it will not stand.

I'm not condoning it.  I'm not ignorant as to what is happening now.  I'm not saying there aren't women who have gone through shit and a shit ton more who will go through shit.  I'm saying, ultimately, the courts will not allow laws that require doctors to fail to provide necessary health care.

I knew I should have never made that post.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19103]

5 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Oregon, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont, Alaska, and Colorado.

Plenty of others have de facto abortion on demand up until birth.  Just go to a doctor (or nurse practitioner in many states through things) and claim emotional distress.  In many states you can do this through telemedicine with a doctor or nurse practitioner you've never even seen.  Similar to getting a prescription for medical marijuana -- just check the box and collect your prescription.

So that would be states that allow post-viability abortions for "health" instead of those that limit the exception for "physical health" or "life".  These states include New York, California, AZ, CT, DE, Hawaii, IL, Maine, MD, MA, Minnesota, Nevada, VA, and Washington.

I think you believe that women are only fulfilled in their life if they are married and have children.  What is absolutely patently obvious is that you are hell bent on pushing your belief structure on others.  And I hate to tell you this, but "mental health" is "health".  Women being forced to carry unwanted babies to term will result in deaths, whether because of suicide or attempts to take care of the problem on their own where safe options have been denied them.  

Edited May 12, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2678]

13 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You and P have your finger on the pulse of parenting situation. 

I'm a parent but disagree with these parental permission restrictions. When I was 15, I had something bad happen to me and if I had needed an abortion (luckily it turns out I didn't), and had to get permission from my parents, I simply wouldn't be here today. I remember that time well, and planning suicide over having to inform my folks. You can have empathy for that or not, but there are a lot of fucked up family situations and things that happen in life, especially to females. If you have a good relationship with your kids, they're gonna come to you anyway.

[Captainant 27680]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Jesus Christ, people.  Read what I wrote.  I don't think this aspect of these laws will ULTIMATELY stand up in court.  I certainly care about what they are TRYING to do, but years down the road it will not stand.

I'm not condoning it.  I'm not ignorant as to what is happening now.  I'm not saying there aren't women who have gone through shit and a shit ton more who will go through shit.  I'm saying, ultimately, the courts will not allow laws that require doctors to fail to provide necessary health care.

I knew I should have never made that post.

You're not hearing me: I'm saying the law doesn't matter to these people who want to control women. They don't give a shit what the law or courts say, and the cops have and will back them up.

Sure, there may be some ex post facto finger wagging from the courts, but there will be no consequences for ignoring the law. What are you gonna do, call the cops on the cops?

Edited May 12, 2022 by Captainant

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

3 hours ago, Poe It Up said:

In the age of gender fluidity, we’re all teenage girls. 

Fuck off with that shit. “Gender fluidity” isn’t a thing. It’s just a term made up by ignorant dumbfucks who are incapable of feeling empathy for the difficult circumstances that other people might be going through. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is saying “Today I’m a man,” and then the next day saying, “Today I’m a woman,” and then the next day saying they’re a man again.

These are difficult decisions and no one is entering into them casually. They’re personal decisions that involve a great deal of stress in order to decide to deviate from the norm. They don’t make those decisions lightly and it’s anything but “fluid” like they change their sexual identity from day to day.

My mom used to say, “There but for the grace of God go I.” I’ve heard it said in old movies, “There but for Providence go I.” I prefer the latter even though it kind of means the same thing. I’m not in a position to judge.

The Bible says in Matthew 7:1:

“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.”

The Golden Rule says to treat others the way you wish to be treated.

And the book of WhatTheBuck says mind your own fucking business and let others live their lives however they please as long as they’re not hurting anyone else. 

[Poe It Up 126]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Fuck off with that shit. “Gender fluidity” isn’t a thing. It’s just a term made up by ignorant dumbfucks who are incapable of feeling empathy for the difficult circumstances that other people might be going through. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is saying “Today I’m a man,” and then the next day saying, “Today I’m a woman,” and then the next day saying they’re a man again.

These are difficult decisions and no one is entering into them casually. They’re personal decisions that involve a great deal of stress in order to decide to deviate from the norm. They don’t make those decisions lightly and it’s anything but “fluid” like they change their sexual identity from day to day.

My mom used to say, “There but for the grace of God go I.” I’ve heard it said in old movies, “There but for Providence go I.” I prefer the latter even though it kind of means the same thing. I’m not in a position to judge.

The Bible says in Matthew 7:1:

“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.”

The Golden Rule says to treat others the way you wish to be treated.

And the book of WhatTheBuck says mind your own fucking business and let others live their lives however they please as long as they’re not hurting anyone else. 

Yeah, that was not a serious post. Take it easy my man. 

[lemonlime 5503]

Jesus Christ, people.  Read what I wrote.  I don't think this aspect of these laws will ULTIMATELY stand up in court.  I certainly care about what they are TRYING to do, but years down the road it will not stand.
I'm not condoning it.  I'm not ignorant as to what is happening now.  I'm not saying there aren't women who have gone through shit and a shit ton more who will go through shit.  I'm saying, ultimately, the courts will not allow laws that require doctors to fail to provide necessary health care.
I knew I should have never made that post.

The point of these laws aren’t to imprison women who miscarried. It’s to punish women and fuck with access to healthcare. It’s to discourage doctors from specializing in obstetrics. Or hospitals from credentialing doctors to perform d & c. And harass women without the means to travel to other states for basic healthcare. That’s all going to happen, and probably is already happening, regardless of what scotus may decide in a few years.

[jimmyjazz 45975]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

The point of these laws aren’t to imprison women who miscarried. It’s to punish women and fuck with access to healthcare. It’s to discourage doctors from specializing in obstetrics. Or hospitals from credentialing doctors to perform d & c. And harass women without the means to travel to other states for basic healthcare. That’s all going to happen, and probably is already happening, regardless of what scotus may decide in a few years.

I haven't disputed any of that.  What I dispute is the idea that the courts will ultimately rubber stamp a complete rogue state.  We're not that far gone.  We're in bad shape, but not that bad. 

Y'all should be careful, when you try to out-Brisket each other, you're doing the same thing these Trump acolytes are doing now -- they're trying to one-up each other in cruelty.  The analogy is trying to one-up each other in nihilism.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

14 hours ago, Captainant said:

Uh oh, an insurance goblin is noting that a nurse took a pulse! Watch out for surprise $10000 hospital bills everyone!

wait, Ana sells insurance? that explains so fucking much

[wildcat09 29355]

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Jesus Christ, people.  Read what I wrote.  I don't think this aspect of these laws will ULTIMATELY stand up in court.  I certainly care about what they are TRYING to do, but years down the road it will not stand.

I'm not condoning it.  I'm not ignorant as to what is happening now.  I'm not saying there aren't women who have gone through shit and a shit ton more who will go through shit.  I'm saying, ultimately, the courts will not allow laws that require doctors to fail to provide necessary health care.

I knew I should have never made that post.

I see no reason to be this optimistic. 

The federal courts aren’t full of intelligent, reasonable people looking to constrain the worst impulses of rabid conservative legislator. They’re full of rabid conservatives who are insulated from any accountability. Many judges are ready to move farther and faster than most conservative legislatures are currently willing to go.

[Neonmoon 38129]

23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm saying, ultimately, the courts will not allow laws that require doctors to fail to provide necessary health care.

Ultimately = 50+ years 

 

[elfenix 34307]

2 hours ago, sidis said:

you know who. 

[royiv 9324]

27 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Yeah, that was not a serious post. Take it easy my man. 

Perhaps not serious, but most certainly unfunny and ignorant.

[Fudge Nuggets 19206]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

@Anastasis knows what it's like to raise his teenage daughter.  I know what it's like to raise two of them.  I don't know what it's like to raise his, or vice versa, although I'm sure there is substantial overlap, given our relatively similar economic backgrounds, schools, etc.  

I sure as shit don't know what it's like to be a single mom raising a teenage daughter, and hey, maybe that daughter is a mom herself, with everyone in low-income housing.

Snapshots aren't total perspective.  Some men struggle with that concept.

Try being a single dad trying to raise a young daughter. Everyone can shut the fuck up. 

[Brisketexan 105154]

30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

you're doing the same thing these Trump acolytes are doing now -- they're trying to one-up each other in cruelty.

Which is my point.  While I have posted extrapolations on some of those, every hideous scenario I've suggested is based on something ACTUALLY proposed by current GQP officials/candidates.  We don't have to make up shit -- they are literally proposing this bullshittery.  And we've seen that the "race to be the cruelest" has worked with things like immigration.  There's no reason to believe abortion will be different.

Remember, banning abortion is what women deserve, because they're evil sluts who should learn to keep their legs closed.  Penises and sperm of course have nothing to do with it, and remain completely unregulated.

[DDD Dad 14339]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Jesus Christ, people.  Read what I wrote.  I don't think this aspect of these laws will ULTIMATELY stand up in court.  I certainly care about what they are TRYING to do, but years down the road it will not stand.

I'm not condoning it.  I'm not ignorant as to what is happening now.  I'm not saying there aren't women who have gone through shit and a shit ton more who will go through shit.  I'm saying, ultimately, the courts will not allow laws that require doctors to fail to provide necessary health care.

I knew I should have never made that post.

If Roe is overturned, there's nothing to stop those laws from being allowed to remain on the books.

[David Dennison 18922]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

If Roe is overturned, there's nothing to stop those laws from being allowed to remain on the books.

Until Dobbs is ultimately overturned. 

[DDD Dad 14339]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Until Dobbs is ultimately overturned. 

['stache 21819]

Aren't there already laws on when parental consent is needed for medical treatment in general? Serious question, what do they say about sensitive issues, like if a parent is a cause of the need for medical treatment, or if a parent is absent or strung out and themselves unable to provide any meaningful consent or consultation?

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

1 hour ago, Poe It Up said:

Yeah, that was not a serious post. Take it easy my man. 

So say that “gender fluidity” isn’t a thing. Say it out loud.

Maybe those are the wrong words.

Write it down and post it publicly that “gender fluidity” is not a thing and no one is actually choosing to switch gender identities from day to day and the people who suggest that they do are bigoted morons. 

Edited May 12, 2022 by WhatTheBuck

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Fuck off with that shit. “Gender fluidity” isn’t a thing. It’s just a term made up by ignorant dumbfucks who are incapable of feeling empathy for the difficult circumstances that other people might be going through. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is saying “Today I’m a man,” and then the next day saying, “Today I’m a woman,” and then the next day saying they’re a man again.

These are difficult decisions and no one is entering into them casually. They’re personal decisions that involve a great deal of stress in order to decide to deviate from the norm. They don’t make those decisions lightly and it’s anything but “fluid” like they change their sexual identity from day to day.

My mom used to say, “There but for the grace of God go I.” I’ve heard it said in old movies, “There but for Providence go I.” I prefer the latter even though it kind of means the same thing. I’m not in a position to judge.

The Bible says in Matthew 7:1:

“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.”

The Golden Rule says to treat others the way you wish to be treated.

And the book of WhatTheBuck says mind your own fucking business and let others live their lives however they please as long as they’re not hurting anyone else. 

psst: 

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

psst: 

 

Weak. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

16 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Weak. 

if you don't like the rules here you can create your own website and move there. sound familiar?

[fattyflattie 4639]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

if you don't like the rules here you can create your own website and move there. sound familiar?

I’m familiar with the policy. Snitching on jokes from board to board is bitchmade. 

[royiv 9324]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m familiar with the policy. Snitching on jokes from board to board is bitchmade. 

For it to be a joke, it would have to be funny. The comment in question was not funny. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

Just now, royiv said:

For it to be a joke, it would have to be funny. The comment in question was not funny. 

Disagree.  This board is littered with non-funny jokes. 

[Captainant 27680]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Snitching on jokes from board to board is bitchmade. 

 

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Disagree.  This board is littered with non-funny jokes. 

It's not snitching, it's the community enforcing fucking standards. Sorry you think being a bigoted dirtbag is just good fun.

Maybe check out texags or parler or 8chan if that sort of humor is your thing?

[immamac 42864]

Jokes on all you idiots laws are just a construct like your outlook on sexuality gender and all the rest of things. M

[David Dennison 18922]

We can still make fun of straight honkies, right?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

Just now, David Dennison said:

We can still make fun of straight honkies, right?

with impunity, myself included

[fattyflattie 4639]

Just now, David Dennison said:

We can still make fun of straight honkies, right?

Depends. How do you vote. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

It's not snitching, it's the community enforcing fucking standards. Sorry you think being a bigoted dirtbag is just good fun.

Maybe check out texags or parler or 8chan if that sort of humor is your thing?

I didn’t say his joke was funny. I said getting your feels hurt because you don’t agree politically with the poster, then encouraging the other board to report it is bitchmade. Because I’m pretty fucking certain ive seen other posts that would qualify that weren’t. Just happens to depend on the poster. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

I didn’t say his joke was funny. I said getting your feels hurt because you don’t agree politically with the poster, then encouraging the other board to report it is bitchmade. Because I’m pretty fucking certain ive seen other posts that would qualify that weren’t. Just happens to depend on the poster. 

it's not all jokes, you perpetual victim. there was enough anti-lgbtq bigotry going around that a policy was made to address it. again, you don't like it- move.

[hpslugga 4062]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Hope is for suckers.

Remember the rules of this timeline: 1) it always gets worse, and 2) there is no bottom.

Exhibit A:

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

the thing about that pic is that Manchin doesn't represent either of those women. he only represents special interests. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21202]

2 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I think you believe that women are only fulfilled in their life if they are married and have children.  What is absolutely patently obvious is that you are hell bent on pushing your believe structure on others.  And I hate to tell you this, but "mental health" is "health".  Women being forced to carry unwanted babies to term will result in deaths, whether because of suicide or attempts to take care of the problem on their own where safe options have been denied them.  

All women who commit suicide from being force to carry an unwanted fetus, will probably be gibbeted.  Can't escape these monster in death, either.