The Majority Leader of the Indiana House of Representatives, the guiding force behind the anti-gay law which he claims was in order to protect marriage, has been forced to resign after a sexually explicit video of him having sex with someone not his wife was sent to everybody on his contacts list.
HE sent it to everybody on his contact list! Behold, the sacred mystery of karma! Laugh? I thought I’d surely die!
Sept. 30, 2015
See how gay marriage is destroying heterosexual marriage.
Well, he claims it was stolen in Canada.
Yeah, you won’t need laws anymore, SCOTUS can just declare that health care is a right and that single payer is the only legal means for fulfilling that right.
All joking aside, a liberal court does pose some threats to our liberties:
- Defining religious liberty as strictly freedom of worship.
- Restricting political speech, not just overturning Citizens United, but Buckley v. Valeo as well.
- Overturning Heller
- Overturning Lopez and Morrison, removing all limits to Congress’ power under the commerce clause
Those are threats?
Or worse, they can’t discriminate in the marketplace like Jesus tells them to.
I wish the anti-abortionists would simply pass a law that bans paying for an abortion, rather than having one. It would be a great way to get around Roe v. Wade. Then the liberal side would have to challenge it and argue that spending money on a right is part of that right - and they’d just have to cite Buckley. That would be awesome.
Well, yes, all of them (save the Heller overthrow) could have disastrous consequences that could bite the butts of liberals.
Except that would require them to punish women, if they pay for abortions. Let’s see how that works out for them.
That already seems to be settled law, or close to it. I’m referring more to religious objections to government requirements that don’t involve serving customers, such as carrying health insurance. The Amish got their exemption, but that’s the government being kind, not an established right as it should be.
They could just make it illegal to ACCEPT money for abortions.
Actually, if you’re just doing SCOTUS bait, then you don’t have to arrest anyone. The lawsuits would be instant since any doctor could claim standing. Then the court is caught in a catch-22. Lance is truly brilliant.
Umm, Lance, you might want to repudiate this…
(given the source’s track record in regards to accuracy)
I don’t know - he seems spectacularly accurate to me right now. 
And this is not some academic exercise either. The anti-abortion people have been using SCOTUS bait and creative ways to get around Roe for decades. It’s entirely within the realm of possibility that some state would actually ban paying for abortions, with the logic being that a woman is still perfectly capable of legally getting an abortion, if she can find someone to do it for free.
Pay for a pelvic exam and get a free abortion?
If we had UHC, no one would have to pay for an abortion.