Abortion ... the wiki

[Kaelik]

Tzor is sort of like the Jesus of the den. He was here a long time ago, pissed a bunch of people off and then left, but people can't stop talking about him and hotly debate the meaning of each thing he said.

???

Except A) He left a month ago, B) He stuck around longer than 90% of the posters who do post now have existed, C) no one debates the meaning of what he said.

So yes, he pissed people off and left, and people continue to talk about him. That's not Jesus, that's just Cartman.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And the girl scouts thing? Aside from just being a really creepy "yeah sure THIS is going to be your vote winner!... right..." issue. Makes it pretty clear that their hatred of women and women's rights has extended to the point that they regard even the most tame, conformist and bland of little girls social groups as a feminazi lesbian attack on their delicate anti-woman sensibilities.

But wait, PhoneLobster, that's not all! Social conservatives, or more specifically Republicans, are also pro-domestic violence indifference.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/us/po ... ss&emc=rss

The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.

Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say.

But Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, found multiple reasons to oppose the bill when it came up for a formal consideration last month.

The legislation “creates so many new programs for underserved populations that it risks losing the focus on helping victims, period,” Mr. Grassley said when the committee took up the measure. After his alternative version was voted down on party lines, the original passed without a Republican vote.

Just so you know, Sen. Grassley was the same loathsome creep who sniveled about death panels during the universal health care debates in 2009 and stabbed Obama in the back over it.

[LargePrime]

A few have made points previously on how in the US you cannot be compelled to show ID.

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/case.html

Is seems the SCOTUS says we must produce papers

[erik]

A few have made points previously on how in the US you cannot be compelled to show ID.

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/case.html

Is seems the SCOTUS says we must produce papers

Here's some more links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

Sounds like in Nevada (where this Hiibel case originated) all he was really required to do by their state laws is to state their name. The officer requesting "identification" either didn't know this, or more likely was trying to trick him into giving more than the simple name-only identification which was all that could be required. To my knowledge this is still the case for Nevada even after the SC ruled.

From second wiki link...

As of February 2011, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained provide anything more than stating his or her name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

It looks like only Colorado actually requires written identification if available. That's as close to "papers please" as we get so far.

[LargePrime]

To my knowledge this case materially reduced the 4th amendment by making "refusal to show ID" now a standard for 'probable cause', at the federal level.

[erik]

To my knowledge this case materially reduced the 4th amendment by making "refusal to show ID" now a standard for 'probable cause', at the federal level.

But I think that "refusal to show ID" has different meanings in most states, and in fact only requires at most a verbal answer in all but Colorado... which still does not require documentation if you don't have it available.

[edit: I should add that yea, the ruling does suck and does open the door for more slippery slopes where eventually they could begin requiring IDs. Just that no states have begun down that path yet.]

[Username17]

Note: you do have to present ID if you are driving. Because your Driver's License is also an identification card in the US, and you can be required to show that you have one if you are behind the wheel of a car.

-Username17

[Neeeek]

To my knowledge this case materially reduced the 4th amendment by making "refusal to show ID" now a standard for 'probable cause', at the federal level.

But I think that "refusal to show ID" has different meanings in most states, and in fact only requires at most a verbal answer in all but Colorado... which still does not require documentation if you don't have it available.

[edit: I should add that yea, the ruling does suck and does open the door for more slippery slopes where eventually they could begin requiring IDs. Just that no states have begun down that path yet.]

The Supreme Court ruling isn't definitive on the subject, but the only ruling I'm familiar with suggests that you can be asked who you are, and they can demand an answer. Not a truthful answer, just a plausible one. Anything further can be self-incrimination. Feel free to use my name if you need to. "I was 2000 miles away at the time" defense is pretty solid.

[Eikre]

Yeah, the objective is to give them zero information and nothing to work with, not merely a different sort of information that they will gladly use to justify stapling your cock to your forehead. Don't fucking lie to the cops.

Your legal advice is phenomenally shitty.

[erik]

Yah. Lying to them can and will be used against you. There is no reason for it other than set yourself up to be screwed hard.

The main reason I'd be reluctant to say anything is because they could mis-hear me and then I could be banged in the ass for allegedly lying later. Actually lying for reals... damn, that's stupid.

[LargePrime]

To my knowledge this case materially reduced the 4th amendment by making "refusal to show ID" now a standard for 'probable cause', at the federal level.

[edit: I should add that yea, the ruling does suck and does open the door for more slippery slopes where eventually they could begin requiring IDs. Just that no states have begun down that path yet.]

The ruling already allows your not producing ID, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TO UNDER LAW!, to be considered probable cause.

there is no slope. it is a cliff we walked off

[erik]

The ruling already allows your not producing ID, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TO UNDER LAW!, to be considered probable cause.

there is no slope. it is a cliff we walked off

But I think that "refusal to show ID" has different meanings in most states, and in fact only requires at most a verbal answer in all but Colorado... which still does not require documentation if you don't have it available.

Yes, and off that cliff, producing ID means giving a verbal response, other than in Colorado, sometimes. There is no ruling yet on probable cause for not having written documentation on your person, anywhere in the 50 states (vehicle operation permit necessities aside).

What was ruled upon in the Hiibel case was that the guy refused to even state his name or produce any verbal identification as required by law, *not* that you have to produce documentation. I'm not finding that conclusion anywhere and I don't think you did either.

Per the wiki link I already provided and referenced.

The name disclosure was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[2] The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court's interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state's law requiring “credible and reliable” identification had been struck down for vagueness.[3]

[Maj]

You should probably ask your doctor about this.

[Username17]

Evacuation and Dilation + Curettage procedures take about 15 minutes. The recovery time for the anesthesia is literally 16 times longer than the procedure itself. They are fast, clean, safe, and inexpensive. They can also only be done in the first trimester, because once you go from embryonic goo to rapidly growing solid fetus, it is a lot more difficult to get the organic material out. So the answer to the question is that the cheapest procedure is simply the earliest procedure. The quicker you get the abortion, the easier it is on everyone.

That being said, this is almost certainly a bot comment that will go back and edit in adverts to the sig after it gets grandfathered into the conversation.

-Username17

[fbmf]

That being said, this is almost certainly a bot comment that will go back and edit in adverts to the sig after it gets grandfathered into the conversation.

-Username17

That is my guess also. Over/under at 24 hours?

Game On,
fbmf