Select Page

Larry Horist: Abortion-on-demand may be on the ropes (Part Two – This is Critical!)

Larry Horist:  Abortion-on-demand may be on the ropes (Part Two – This is Critical!)

In Part One, I dealt with the general issues surrounding the Supreme Court case involving the Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks as opposed to the current 24-week restriction.  The 24-week threshold is based on the CURRENT arbitrary and imprecise medical determination and a political definition of “viability.”  I emphasized “current” since as modern science has gained more knowledge about the developing fetus, the time of viability has been moving earlier into the gestation period.

Argument Number 1: Abortion should be allowed before “viability.”

In simple terms, “viability” means that the child can survive outside the womb.  Pro-lifers challenge the very definition of viability – arguing that a developing human being in the womb is “viable” from conception as long as the unborn is nurtured by the host mother.  They point out that even a full-term baby is not viable (survivable) without the care and nurturing of others – mostly the mother.

Premature babies at 24 weeks can survive – and many have.  At 24 weeks, the child already has human features – as the photo atop this commentary shows.

Argument Number 2: It would create an undue hardship of women wanting an abortion.

Since the Supreme Court is considering two options – banning abortion after 15 weeks or reversing Roe v. Wade totally – there are two levels of arguable hardship – having to get the abortion before the 15-week deadline or having to carry the child to term.

As a sub-argument, the pro-abortion advocates say that overturning Roe v. Wade would have millions of women seeking illegal and dangerous “back-alley abortions.”  If based on pre-Roe v. Wade figures, that number would not be anywhere near the exaggerated projected claim of “millions.” 

The essential question, however, is at what time in the developmental process is the unborn person a protectable human being with the constitutional RIGHT to life.  We know that happens before physical birth because of the many cases in which fetal death or injury were adjudicated in favor of the fetus as a human being.

Taking a human life summarily or arbitrarily can never be defended based on hardship or inconvenience to the person taking that life.  That put the issue back on the question of WHEN – when is that developing human a fully recognized person with rights of his or her own – the right to live regardless of the hardship or inconvenience of another.

Argument Number 3: Women have come to rely on abortions

This is generally known as the “reliance doctrine” in law.  It basically means that something that may otherwise be considered illegal or improper has won such wide acceptance among the public that the egregious practice should be allowed to continue.  

We saw that in 2020 in Pennsylvania where tens of thousands of mail-in votes were counted after the legal deadline for submission.  Election officials had changed the deadline due to the Pandemic, but it was a violation of the law and the Pennsylvania Constitution.  The otherwise illegal ballots were allowed to be counted – instead of being rejected as the law required — because well-intentioned people had relied on the illegal procedural change.

Argument Number 4: It is a woman’s right exclusively to make the abortion decision.

This is the one argument that I have always found to be the most preposterous.  This flies in the face of the Constitution’s promise of equal justice … science … and logic.  In every abortion, there are three stakeholders – the mother, the father and the unborn child.

While biology has made it the role of the woman to host and naturally nurture the unborn in the initial stages of development, that fetus is not part of her body as is a liver or a kidney.  It is not part of the female standard equipment.

Making the woman the sole decision-maker is not unlike slavery in which the owner has the exclusive power of life and death over the slave.  The unfettered decision by the mother that the human being developing in her womb has no right to live is contrary to all concepts of law and logic.

The “right” of which pro-abortion advocates speak is a technical or arbitrary right that has been confirmed – inappropriately in the judgment of pro-fifers – by a misguided Supreme Court responding to the zeitgeist of an earlier time – responding to politics instead of the Constitution’s admonition to a preeminent right to life – the constitutional promise to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Everything in the Constitution is predicated on the right to life.  Without it no rights exist.

Abrogating the rights of the father runs contrary to law and traditions where joint responsibilities and liabilities are generally recognized.  Parental rights are generally recognized in both parents.  In the case of the life or death of the offspring, all power is currently provided to the mother.  The father’s role is only recognized in the case of a birth.  Should the father be able to demand an abortion for economic or other reasons?

Argument Number 5: Abortion is a woman’s health issue

It is almost unbelievable that the health issue is even advanced as a reason for literally taking the life of another developing human being.  It is also a two-sided issue.  There are legitimate physical and mental health issues associated with having a child AND having an abortion.  One can only advance the health argument if one completely disregards the health of the developing human and the health risks – mental and physical – of abortions.

In support of the woman’s exclusive right and the so-called “health issue,” the abortion advocates used the term “body integrity.”  Again, this is based on the denial of rights to that other body – the developing human in the womb.

Argument Number 6: The Constitution does not ban abortion

First of all, the Constitution deals with overarching concepts of rights and freedoms.  It does not ban murder.  What it does is to articulate inalienable rights – under which laws are enacted in defense of those rights.

Argument Number 7: Opposition to abortion is merely a religious issue

In the hearing, Justice Sotomayor specifically said that opposition to abortion is “a religious issue.”  It was shocking to hear a justice of the Supreme Court make such an absurd assertion.  To apply her standard across the board, murder is a religious issue because the Ten Commandments include “Thou shalt kill.”  This was more of a deflection from the serious issues than a contribution.

Argument Number 8: The fetus is not a human being

The assumption upon which the entire pro-abortion rests is that in the earliest stages of gestation, the developing human is not … human.  Is not a person.  But that transition from useless and unwanted piece of flesh to a recognized human is determinable by the ever-changing opinions of doctors implemented by the capricious and arbitrary actions of legislators.

There is no event that can identify that transition between fleshy tissue and human being.  The fetus at 15 or 24 weeks is essentially the same being at 15 weeks and one day – or 24 weeks and one day.  There is nothing in science or biology that can draw a distinction and when a fetus can be killed – but be protected one day later.  That moment is imprecise and every changing.

There is only one event at which scientists can clearly see a transition to human – and that is conception.  That is the moment that the DNA is complete.  At that moment, the developing human has hair and eye color … the shape of the ears … and even latent diseases.  The only difference between the fertilized egg and the newborn child is physical appearance.  And in too many cases, the aborted baby is disturbingly human looking – bodies with fingers and toes and all the internal organs – which Planned Parenthood was harvesting and selling.

Argument Number 9: Abortions were allowed under common law in colonial times

Whether that is partially true or widely accepted is irrelevant.  One could have made the same point for the preservation of slavery.  If something is wrong, its practice in history is not a good argument.  If it were, we would still be talking about the ancient form of human sacrifice.

Argument Number 11: Abortion is favored by a majority of the people.

First, that is an oversimplification.  While polls show support of the concept of abortion, the public also favors a varying array of restrictions — most notably major opposition to late-term and post-birth abortions.  The number of people supporting abortion drops significantly when asked: “Do you approve of abortions for economic reasons?” or “Do you approve of abortions if unwed?”

But even in noting the levels of public opinion on various aspects of abortion, the fundamental argument is totally flawed in that the Supreme Court is the one branch of government that must stand apart from popular opinion of political viewpoints.  But rather, focus on the constitutional language and inference.


For the past 48 years, the essential question at the core of the abortion debate has never changed.  There is no argument that the fertilized human egg is the launching point of a real human being – a person who has, at some point, all the inalienable and constitutional rights recognized in America.  The issue is at what point society confers  the civic sacrament of humanness.  The very arbitrary and ever moving point of biological citizenship is, in and of itself, proof that there is no definitive answer outside of conception, itself.

It seemed to me in listening to the entire proceeding that the pro-abortion arguments were based on arguably false assumptions and political considerations.  Overturning Roe v. Wade would not be a political decision – as Justice Sotomayor claims – but allowing it to stand would be.  We know that because one of the pro-abortion advocates major arguments has been public popularity based on political viewpoints and polls.

All we can do now is wait for the decision.  I will not be attending any pro-life rallies since public pressure is no longer appropriate or effective.  Let those who want to pander for media attention go for it.  The rest of us will stay calm and pray for a good outcome.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Larry kuhn

    Advice for Ben , Joseph and Frank Don’t screw your daughters.

    • Joseph S. Bruder

      Why, because you have and it didn’t turn out well?

      • Larry kuhn

        I don’t know your daughter

        • Joseph S. Bruder

          I knew I set myself up for that one… after I hit Send…

    • Ben

      Don’t worry Larry KKKuhn, I definitely don’t look at my daughters like trump looks at Ivanka. I mean that’s downright disturbing. Not once have I thought or said, if my girls weren’t mine that I’d be tappin that ass.

      • Harold blankenship

        What about your Muslim daughter in law ?

        • Ben

          Harold “firing”Blanks,

          You perv! You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with my daughter in law. She is in her early 30’s, old enough to know you’re a creep, and about 18 yrs too old for you to keep your little secret.

          Fuckin weirdo.

          Still, unlike trump, and the Duggars, I have no desires towards family members. I see a reoccurring Republican theme with the men you guys support. Maybe that’s why you pipped in? Trying to deflect from the topic at hand?

          • frank stetson

            Don’t let pbp off the hook for their bold support of the first amendment by publishing obscene garbage restricted from freedom of speech by the SCOTUS. Or maybe they like supporting incest as a form of personal freedom. Sure makes for an enjoyable read. Let’s focus on Joe’s family’s body parts, now there’s a meaty discussion worthy of pbp editorials. Sigh. Just awful.

  2. Joseph S. Bruder

    I think I can reduce Larry’s arguments (which repeat themselves and are all over the map) to just a few related topics.

    First, arguments about viability, conception, being human, religion, and even the rights of a person under the Constitution all boil down to one idea: when does the result of sexual intercourse become a person. Despite what Larry says, conception is not a magic transition into being a person. It’s a clockwork of cells and chemicals set into motion by combining the contributions of the two donors. Everything has to be just right for the pregnancy to proceed – and indeed, roughly a third of pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion, not to mention the billions of times that the egg and sperm fail to combine.

    But where should the line be drawn? Viability is a logical choice – some things develop faster than others, but that clockwork keeps going as long as it’s fed the proper nutrients and kept in the proper environment. I can build a machine that will replicate a heartbeat, as long as it’s given electricity or some chemical fuel. Ditto, something akin to a nervous system or a circulatory system. An animal fetus will do the same thing at that stage of development. Neither my machine nor the animal fetus would be considered a person. Future technology may change that, but then we’ll have MUCH bigger ethical issues to worry about.

    So, now we’re talking about a fetus that has the potential to become a person, but is not yet a person. If the fetus develops without a brain, even to the point of birth, would you consider it a person? Of course not. It can’t live without a brain, it has no will, it can’t think or make decisions, it can’t function without outside help, it will never be an independent entity.

    Now we’ve separated between having a brain or not. Parts of the brain start developing at 6 weeks, as the nerves and muscles and autonomic responses develop. Brainwaves don’t start until around week 28. Until that time, the brain is only linking together the mechanical things that will allow a body to function outside the womb at some later date. The body is building a car, but there’s no driver. Using the viability limit of approximately 24 weeks is a full month before the fetus even starts to become a sentient being, and seems a reasonable amount of time to account for early development of brain function or a mistake in counting weeks.

  3. Joseph S. Bruder

    The second part of the abortion argument boils down to a moral aspect. Some people have equated aborting a fetus with killing a child. They have cherry-picked various parts of the development of the fetus to fit their own conclusions. These arguments are not based on any logical evaluation of the fetus, but purely on their own opinions. It’s religion, if you define religion as a belief based on an idea with no proof. NOBODY thinks killing a child is moral or OK, but the more fervent of the anti-abortionists will try to smear anyone who thinks abortion should be legal as baby killers. They’re bringing an emotionally charged but false equivalency into the argument.

    Given that the majority of anti-abortionists are Christians of one sort or another, the Bible is not exactly silent on the issue. The only mention of abortion is in Numbers, where a woman that has sex outside of marriage is told to go to the priest who will give her a potion (“cursed water”) to cause her to miscarry. There are a passage or two that say God loves the child in the womb, but there are also violent descriptions of what to do for not believing in the correct god, such as killing the women and children, and even (Hosea) “women with child shall be ripped up”. You’d think that an all-knowing God would have been aware of the abortion issue coming down the road at a later date, and would have included a commandment “Thou shall not abort an unborn fetus”.

    So, the religious argument is somewhat inconsistent, and definitely in the eye of the beholder. Our Constitution forbids the making of laws that respect (i.e. support) the purely religious views, so religion should not be considered in a country that rules by Constitution.

    • Jennifer simon

      When the Bible referred to pregnant women they were said to be with child. Not embryo or fetus

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        And how many times was it translated before it got to English? Besides, it was written several thousand years ago – how would they know the difference between an embryo or fetus compared to a baby? They may not have even had terms for those things. And one of my sources during research noted that most books of the Bible seemed especially squeemish when to came to naming genitals or mentioning bodily functions. And even then, a euphemism for being pregnant is a pretty weak argument.

        Also, see in the third section below where I talk about rights, and that the Constitution specfically prohibits laws respecting religion. In other words, your religious views shouldn’t be a deciding factor in the abortion decision.

      • Ben

        It’s a good thing we are a Nation of laws based on science and not a 2,000 yr old work of fiction

    • Tommy rice

      The King James Bible should be the law of the land. Especially the part where Jesus commanded the decouples to sell their coats and buy swords. In today’s world it would be to buy guns

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        Nope, if you’re going to mandate the Bible as the law, all guns have to go and you’re left only with swords… except they have to be melted down into plowshares.

        Also, you go to the Temple priests for your abortion. And if they believe in the wrong God, you rip the babies right our of women’s bellies.

        You could sacrifice your daughter as a burnt offering for favorable treatment from God. And if you don’t serve the correct God, you’re forced to eat the flesh of your sons and daughters.

        There are dozens more like that.

        Nothing like Originalism!

  4. Joseph S. Bruder

    The third part of the argument has to do with the rights of a person. In this country, our Constitution confers (among others) the rights of liberty (as in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) and the right to privacy. There is no definition of a person in the Constitution – not too surprising since there weren’t many options at the time it was written. Everything is man-centric – it does not mention women, nor does it mention children, but subsequent law has assumed that the Founders women and children when they wrote “All men are created equal”. There has never been anything to imply that the Founders included the fetus in the definition. And, in fact, abortion has been around since long before the Founding Fathers created our Constitution, and goes back to at least Biblical times.

    What is clear, however, is that the Constitution created a right to privacy. That was part of the basis for the Roe v. Wade decision, by a group of CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justices, by the way. They recognized that the state has no business mucking around with a woman’s reproductive choices. There are a myriad other reasons for a woman to terminate a pregnancy – the health of the mother, for example. How is the state more qualified than a woman’s doctor to say that a woman can safely continue a pregnancy? Can they diagnose a woman’s physical or mental health? Can they guarantee that the woman has the ability to care for the child until it is grown? Is the state willing to take the child away and see that it’s cared for and educated and that good adoptive parents can be found? The state, and/or religious organizations have not been very good at that so far.

    The other right enshrined in the Constitution is the right to liberty. A woman who is forced to keep a fetus and carry it until a child is born is reduced to a slave. The state can not take that choice away from a woman. If a woman doesn’t want to carry the fetus to term, what are the state’s options? The can incarcerate the woman, and if she tries to self-abort, they could strap her to a bed until the baby is born. At that point, the state has stripped all of the woman’s rights, in favor a fetus that hasn’t even made it to personhood.

    And does a man have a right to be a father? That’s not in the Constitution. Certainly, both men and women have a right to be with their (legal) families (I think that would fall under Pursuit of Happiness), but how does a man get the right to force a woman to give birth? Women are not slaves to man, at least in the Constitution. Some Biblical passages argue otherwise, but the Constitution by design, fortunately, gives us freedom from the dictates of various relgions. Should a man get to rape a woman (an illegal act) and then get the right to force her to stay pregnant? In the eyes of the religious/moral argument, the fetus is no different than one carried by a husband and wife and created by mutual agreement.

    I think that my arguments have covered the legal abortion side. Nobody really “likes” abortion, but even Larry admits that roughly two-thirds of people think abortion should be legal. I would presume that those people have gone through similar considerations as I have, and come to the same conclusions. One major difference – the side advocating legal abortions has taken real steps to make abortion unnecessary – easy access to birth control, more support for children, more open and honest sex education, and providing other forms of women’s health care. These actions help a woman decide when she will become pregnant, and give her other options if she does. And indeed, the number of abortions has declined, and the number of women who have died from abortions is almost zero. The anti-abortion side has mostly concentrated on making abortion, birth control, access to health care much harder or even prohibited.

    As usual, Larry will call me uninformed and accuse me of reading something into his arguments that he didn’t intend to say. And Harry/Larry/Dan/Susan/ will just curse at me and call me names and not offer any rebuttal or reasons for their opinions. I’m certainly willing to defend my arguments with anyone who cares to write a reasonable reply.

    • larry Horist

      “As usual, Larry will call me uninformed and accuse me of reading something into his arguments that he didn’t intend to say.” I see you have scripted the mythical Larry Horist that occupies your mind. Check the record and you will discover that the real Larry Horist never made those statements. It is my practice to generally ignore your writings. You certainly know that I do not bother responding to your long rambling and irrational screed and your obsessive desire to attack the writers and the PBP platform based on your obvious disrespect and contempt for your own biological brother owns and operates this site. I have no desire to be a third party participant in your sibling combat. And if you want a point-by-point refutation of your current comments here, just re-read my commentary.

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        Larry, it’s not what occupies my mind – I’m just trying to short circuit your normal response so that you might actually try to debate the points. But instead, you’ve basically cut-and-paste your same replies, and repeated exactly what you claim you never said: “mythical Larry Horist” and “long rambling and irrational screed” are exactly what I was referring to. It’s amazing how little self-awareness you have.

        And “normal practice is to ignore your writings”, “obsessive”, “obvious disrespect and contempt”, “sibling combat” are all from same list that you usually throw at me. Nothing but insults, and you do the same to Frank and Ben. And you wonder why the discourse on this website gets so nasty. YOU set the tone, your right-wing echo chamber picks it up, and the whole thing turns into nothing but mean-spirited bickering.

    • Theodore Sueck

      What arguments? All you have is your left (extreme left) opinions. You do realize that opinions are like a**holes, some stink worse than others, and man, yours reeks to high heaven.

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        I guess I should have included you in the list of idiots that alway call people names, but are incapable of arguing a point. There seem to be so many of you in the right-wing readers that I lose track. I’ll try to remember for next time. Do you prefer “HaLaDaSuSuck” or “HarryLarryDannySusieSuckie”? Sorry, “Teddy” just doesn’t fit.

        • Theodore Sueck

          What name did I call you? In case you are too dense to comprehend, what I said was that your opinions stink. But then again, you, Frank, and a few others probably are that dense.

          • Joseph S. Bruder

            How many points have you actually tried to argue on this website? Have you ever added to an argument? Ever said anything besides calling opposing viewpoints stupid?

  5. Frank stetson

    Brau, I have to go with Sureck in this rare case, don’t spell chueck that one, although why he is sniffing your arse is beyond me, guess it rakes all kinds. Don’t think his plan to kiss your a$$ will pay off 🙂

    Only the court can tell us the “facts” of the Constitution. Was that their RvW decision rationale?

    Don’t really matter. Uphold, status quo goes on. Overturn, the States decide, 50% will get restrictive making no difference at all to the rich from status quo plus a trip out of state. For the poor, a different and more problematic choice including some with added risk. But they will be plenty if places, close by may be difficult. .And may take a bit of time to expand for the extra clients.

    Don’t really matter. Overturn and there will be a backlash at the polls to politicizing the SCOTUS looking to return the court to a 5/4 who cares who’s on top status too. At least that’s the national polling on this. Biden, Pelosi, Schumer and more may be thanking Trump for this one.

    Just feel sorry for the poor girls who get trapped just because they don’t have the choice in this that money provides the rich who will continue to have choice because the Republicans have chosen this set of winners and losers

    • Joseph S. Bruder

      Yes, I think you’re right about the backlash. It’s going to push Democrats to both create legislation and to add another 4-5 justices to SCOTUS to undo what Republicans have wrought.

  6. Ben

    It’s pretty exciting that republicans laid out a road map for California of snitching and personally suing for an assault rifle ban. I mean keeping the state out of it and allowing individuals to sue for something they just don’t think someone else should be doing is genius. I’m eager to see what else liberals can use this tactic for.

    • Andrew mcmill

      The scotus will look at 2nd amendment issues differently. It’s well inside the bill of rights. And we are gearing up people here in California to stand and fight. The language in the Heller and Miller decisions speak strongly about guns in common use for lawful purposes. And when millions of us say out of our cold dead hands we really mean it. And that’s a two way street. So come and take them

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        Are you telling me one Amendment is better than another? As far as I know, they’ve never been interpreted that way.

        And someday, the Court will re-examine the second Amendment and try to figure out why the “well regulated militia” clause is really there.

        • James coleman

          And when the gun grabbing starts the blood will flow. The people in Mexico aren’t allowed to have guns and look at how that works out for them. A well regulated militia are armed citizens prepared to protect themselves and their families and communities. If you don’t want guns that’s fine with me. You don’t want me to have guns? Come and take them.

          • frank stetson

            Where is there a “well regulated militia prepared to protect themselves and their families and their communities” in America? What are your numbers, like 500 t-shirted beer-bellied bozo’s with guns? Ever even practice? With real military trained professionals?

            I personally like to play with guns, they are neat. Been hunting since 13, although I did stop 15 years ago when I came to NJ, and after 15 years my land got a little more crowded on the edges making shooting the grounder-pounders a little more risky. Plus, no rifles which just seems stupid to me. But I can’t believe the stupid data system we have for gun registration information and the lack of ingenuity by gun lovers and militia lovers alike not to go for the good stuff.

            I not only like the idea of militia’s; I think a properly well regulated militia should be able to have big guns, tanks, missiles, all sorts of stuff private citizens are precluded from having. As long as they are well regulated. Why not, sounds like fun, if well regulated. Then, if you guys have half a brain, you develop the doomsday scenario for instantly going off the grid, disappearing, setting up secure communication backchannels with other militia’s, you know, prepare to go totally unregulated in the face of governmental destruction, either domestic or foreign caused. Or if you don’t like the voting outcome :>)

            Then, I would PAY the NRA to keep an electronic database for all gun registrations now held on paper at each gun shop. Buy the whole thing for them with tax dollars to improve our abilities to trace crime guns. Let the NRA build the database, protect it, secure the system from gun shop to NRA to ATF, keep it completely off net, be prepared to honor any ATF crime gun tracking, by law, instantly —- still can keep the database off net. And get the freakin fax machines out of the system. ATF just asks, NRA pulls, and then goes over to the nearest on-net facility and fires the data into the NRA. Who cares if that data goes on net —- it’s a crime gun, deemed so by the court.

            Now you have bigger guns, and tanks, to play with; your secret registration is safe with the NRA, and ATF can track guns faster than the speed of light which will take days, if not weeks, out of the paper trial the ATF chases today.

            For example, after Katrina and all the gun shops not only went belly up, they went underwater. Outside of DC is a warehouse where all the failed gun shop gun registration tracking paperwork is held. The Katrina stuff is so bad that the workers need oxygen to fend off the mold. Imagine the poor sot having to do an ATF crime gun search through that crap. On a deadline. Imagine how many gun shops fail each year and you can see this registration paperwork warehouse is like the place the Ark was finally stored….. Truly, look it up.

            See, if one thinks about it, it’s amazing how win-win scenarios appear.

      • Ben

        It’s interesting you cite past case law as precedent setting, because as Kavanuagh said, Roe was a super precedent, and it seems Republicans are poised to over turn it. This law is so cleverly crafted, that we can use it for all types of things we don’t like.

        Im pretty excited to see the first of you being sued in court using your own tactics! This is going to be fun!

        As for your cold dead hands… good luck with that

        • Joseph S. Bruder

          I’m directing this at Frank, but there’s no reply button on his last comment.

          We already have a well regulated militia – besides the branches of the national military, we also have the National Guard. They hold regular trainings, they’re semi-professional, they are well armed, and they have a connection to the military but can be called up by the Governors of states. They leave their guns somewhere safe when they’re not training.

          I’d be opposed to the NRA having any leadership role. They are not regulated by the state, and their leadership had absolutely no problem taking money from Putin’s buddies and illegally funnelling it to McConnell and Trump. I would bet that their record keeping would ripe for the picking by criminal organizations, either by selling to the highest bidder or just plain theft. You can’t trust an organization that has no accountability.

          Regulation implies law enforcement behind it. WE The People set up a government that WE control at every step of the way. WE demand and get accountability. If government overreaches, then WE have the power to vote out the offenders. Justice is slow, but usually pretty fair. Like any system, there are mistakes, but there is still accountability. I don’t want to hand that responsibility to a handful of armed idiots who hate minorities, believe women should be subservient, have no idea what their tax money goes for or what it takes to run a country, and want to escape into the woods to fight guerilla warfare and rule by bullying. With Trump, we swung over a little too far in that direction, but WE threw out the bums and government is correcting itself.

          • frank stetson

            That’s because there is no reply :>)

            Hey, didn’t you get the memo. You’re not allowed to disagree with other liberals, need to march in lock step, elbows linked, jack-boots on, to be able to trample any in our path. Together alone we march together through the pandemic as the unvaccinated continue to infect our lives. I saw Loki, the variant is inevitable ;>)

            OK, you know what I meant re: militia: “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.” google from the web.

            Eh, what leadership role? In what: a database that we don’t have any control over today? Plus, I am ever hopeful the NRA members will boot their administration and put law-abiding, businessmen, who love guns and the 2nd at the helm rather than money-grubbing Russian-lovin fools. But, no matter, it’s just a database and we aren’t losing in this, given the current manner of databasing is paper-copies of forms at EVERY local gun shop in America, versus my suggestion that we let the NRA manage that crap, electronically, so we can achieve much faster results for crime-gun traces by ATF. I think the database security can be better assured via the NRA centralizing than 4 billion little gun shops in a distributed database, at best. Remember, when the #$#@$ hits the fan, the first thing gun shop owners should, and probably will, do is torch the files. Don’t see a lessening of that safety with the NRA. Besides, it’s good to partner, even if we might have a few different thoughts on things. IMO.

            “I don’t want to hand that responsibility to a handful of armed idiots who hate minorities, believe women should be subservient, have no idea what their tax money goes for or what it takes to run a country, and want to escape into the woods to fight guerilla warfare and rule by bullying.” Oh come on. You’re projecting… You don’t know this to be true, or even a majority of the members.

          • Joe carter

            Government will never be right until the last commieturd has dirt shoveled on them. And yes, us citizens militia are around when the weekend warriors aren’t

    • Mack ewinG

      The previous scotus rulings recognized the 2nd amendment being protected by federal laws. Sorry Ben. It doesn’t work that way. By the way, it’s common knowledge that antifa is armed with so called assault weapons. Go take theirs and tell me how that works out. I’ll spell it out for you. Don’t fuck with a truck and you won’t get ran over. And for you ignorant people out there, assault weapons were banned in the 1930,s unless a person goes through a big process of setting up a trust and obtaining a tax stamp for registration through the BATF. And believe me. A very small percentage of gun owners possess them. You Marxist throw out terminology that doesn’t even fit. I’ve only known three people in my life that have assault weapons and the proper paperwork. So go preach your communism to fools that will believe your bullshit. And our wonderful scotus has already ruled that t the Jack booted government thugs can’t come into someone’s house without probable cause and a warrant.

      • Ben

        I have to admit that I got a chuckle out of “ you Marxist throw out terminology that doesn’t even fit”

        Tremendous self own there bud.

        As far as Jack booted thugs, it’s your side that licks the boots of the boys in blue. I’ve never seen a liberal fly the thin blue line/ blue lives matter flag.

        All that being said, California will not be sending officials to take your guns, they will be using the blue print of the right to allow citizens to sue gun owners in court. Turnabout is fair play. SCOTUS seems to indicate that this is acceptable to them. I’m excited.

    • Joseph S. Bruder

      Yeah, Republicans will be up in arms when states start replicating the Texas law against something they really like, and then both will become unconstitutional.

  7. Online Casino

    This is a good tip particularly tto those fresh to the blogosphere.
    Short but very precse info… Thanks for sharing this
    one. A must read post!

  8. Ben

    Larry, I see that Oregon is now considering the GOP and SCOTUS endorsed play book to allow its citizens to sue coal companies for the pollution they cause.

    I will readily admit that republicans are waaaay more devious than the democrats, y’all get shit done. I have no problem piggy backing off of your guys good idea to achieve some of our agenda.

    Thanks guys!

  9. Ben

    In a great win for women, Today the FDA removed restrictions on medicine abortions. I listened to a podcast that was listing all the ways that women will use this ruling to get around the Republican assault on women’s reproductive rights.

    This is great news, not only for women, but society at large.

  10. schlauchschal Damen

    I кnow this if off topiϲ but I’mlooкing into starting my own blοg and
    waѕ wonderfing what all is required to get set up? І’m assuming hɑving а bⅼog like yours would cost a prеtty
    penny? I’m not very weƄ savvy so I’m not 100% positive.
    Any ѕuցgestions or advuce ѡоulpd be greatlly apprecіated.

    Also visit my website; schlauchschal Damen

    • Ben

      Don’t worry about being tech savvy, Larry isn’t either, but it hasn’t stopped him. As far as starting your own blog, don’t look at this one for inspiration, it looks like a grandpa set it up.