Conservatism

[Imari]

But you’re never going to change my personal opinion that states, counties, ect. should do whatever they have to do in order to eradicate gangs like these, of any race, as much as they possibly can. And no, I’m not trying to change anyone’s personal opinion on the matter, either.

So why do they need to specify the race then? Seems like the law as written sort of goes against what you actually want.

 

[Yard_Sale]

So why do they need to specify the race then? Seems like the law as written sort of goes against what you actually want.

I don’t disagree with that

 

[TexRex]

Ah.

Oklahoma bill would ban sending sexy selfies unless you're married

It could also outlaw any sort of sexualized image, play, or performance, pornographic or not.

reason.com

An anti-porn bill in Oklahoma is so extreme that it could even make sexting outside of a marriage a crime.

The wide-reaching bill would make merely viewing "obscene materials" a felony. It would also restrict "unlawful porn" distribution and production—with enforcement possible through both criminal prosecution and private lawsuits—and make it a misdemeanor to pose for, exhibit, or publish unlawful porn. And of course it would define these terms to include a huge array of sexually charged adult activity (far beyond what many people would consider pornography).

It's part of a wave of conservative plans targeting a very broad definition of "porn"—First Amendment be damned—that threatens not just "hardcore pornography" but all sorts of erotic expression. Whether or not this particular bill goes anywhere, it represents a resurgent moral panic over porn (more common on the right, but present in more progressive corners too) and associated attempts to restrict it. Sometimes these attempts take the form of pressure campaigns on financial institutions that do business with sex workers or porn companies. Sometimes they involve lawsuits against porn websites or other platforms where porn is shared. A lot of them lately have focused on requiring age verification for porn sites. And sometimes, as with this Oklahoma bill, they attempt to drastically expand what is considered illegal obscenity or pornography.

The measure—Oklahoma Senate Bill 1976—comes from state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R–District 32), who also put forth legislation to repeal no-fault divorce. It's slated to be formally introduced on February 5, but the text was already filed last week, giving us advance notice about how bad it is.

By and large, the First Amendment protects pornography, though there are some big exceptions. It does not protect porn that depicts people under age 18. And it does not protect "obscenity," an ill-defined category that's been the subject of many a court case. But most adult pornography is considered protected.

Decades of First Amendment law notwithstanding, Deevers' bill attempts to carve out a new category of largely prohibited content called "unlawful pornography."

His measure defines unlawful porn as "any visual depiction or individual image stored or contained in any format on any medium including, but not limited to, film, motion picture, videotape, photograph, negative, undeveloped film, slide, photographic product, reproduction of a photographic product, play, or performance" when the depiction involves basically any sort of sex act, nudity, partial nudity, or sexual fetish. Unlawful depictions include "sexual intercourse which is normal or perverted," along with oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation. Also included is any "lewd exhibition of the uncovered genitals, buttocks, or, if such person is female, the breast, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer"; any depiction of "physical restraint such as binding or fettering in the context of sexual conduct"; and the undefined category "sadomasochistic abuse."

If this were just a ban on what people call "hardcore pornography," it would still be bad. But it's not just about "hardcore pornography." The unlawful porn definition is broad enough to include all partnered or solo porn photos and videos (even the more tame stuff), and possibly even erotic drawings, strip clubs, burlesque, drag, depictions of domination, and more.

All "unlawful porn" would be off limits to produce or distribute unless it was deemed to have "serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value."

S.B. 1976 would not just justify lawsuits or charges against porn production companies and websites such as Pornhub. It could also reach adult models, individual performers in porn videos, and even someone who simply sent someone who is not their spouse a sexually charged photo. (The bill says it's not meant to "prevent spouses from sending images of a sexual nature to each other.")

It could lead to lawsuits and charges against performers in live shows with sexually charged antics, including strippers, drag performers, and burlesque dancers.

It could also lead to lawsuits or charges against a wide range of distribution platforms. Sure, entities like Xvidoes and OnlyFans could be found liable—or at least tested in court—if they continued allowing access to people in Oklahoma. But so could any social media platform, video app, streaming service, etc., if it fails to stop adult content.

This would incentivize platforms to either block Oklahoma users entirely or—especially if more states follow suit—to start strictly moderating even remotely adult content.

Like Texas' "abortion bounty law," SB 1976 would be partially enforced by private lawsuits. "Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state," could bring a civil action against anyone they think has produced or distributed unlawful porn, knowingly aided and abetted its production or distribution, or intends to do so.

Those found guilty could be liable for statutory damages of $10,000 for every image or depiction, plus "injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this section" and the court costs and attorney fees of the person who sued. (Meanwhile, someone who successfully defended themselves against such a lawsuit could not recover court costs and attorney fees from the person who brought it, leaving no downside to filing long-shot lawsuits and a lot of expense even for entities or people eventually exonerated.)

The proposed law would also deploy criminal enforcement. Under S.B. 1976, it would be a crime to "buy, procure, view, or possess" any "obscene materials" (yes, view).

Obscenity under Oklahoma law is defined roughly according to the test set forth in Miller v. California. It includes "any representation, performance, depiction or description of sexual conduct" that, when taken as a whole, is determined to be "patently offensive as found by the average person applying contemporary community standards," as well as designed to appeal "to prurient interest in sex" and lacking in "serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value."

One might think that this test would rule out run-of-the-mill commercial pornography or the sorts of images that many people in intimate relationships send one another. But S.B. 1976 specifically states that all of the acts defined as unlawful porn (a category that includes so much as exposing a breast or butt cheek with an intent to titillate) "are depictions of sexual conduct which are patently offensive under contemporary community standards in this state, and have as their dominant theme an appeal to prurient interest in sex."

Unless that butt selfie is deemed to be a work of serious artistic merit, it would seem to fall under Oklahoma's definition of obscene materials, which would make it a crime to even so much as look at it.

The buying/procuring/viewing/possessing offense would be a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison or a fine of up to $25,000. So would "distribut[ing] any unlawful pornography that lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value."

The bill would also make it a misdemeanor crime to "act in, pose for, model for, print, sell, offer for sale, give away, exhibit, publish, offer to publish, or otherwise distribute, display, or exhibit" content featuring unlawful pornography. Doing so would be punishable by up to one year in county jail or by a fine of not less than $2,000.

In a sea of statehouse porn panics, this new bill stands out. While a number of states have passed or considered laws relating to pornography being seen by minors, Deevers' bill goes several steps further and is an especially egregious affront to free speech.

Now, state lawmakers introduce crazy stuff—much of which has no chance of going anywhere—all the time. So it's tempting just to dismiss this bill as one dude's personal crusade. But even if that turns out to be true, Deevers' proposal reflects a broader crusade that is getting legislators' votes.

The GOP is really obsessed with porn these days. Not long ago, we saw a wave of Republican-controlled legislatures pass resolutions declaring porn a "public health crisis." Porn age verification bills have passed in Louisiana, Texas, and North Carolina. And despite some initial court rulings against age verification laws, similar measures are gaining steam in other states, with lawmakers in Ohio and Oklahoma alike introducing them just last week. (This newsletter will certainly be keeping tabs on these.)

Some legislators have introduced bills that would ban porn on devices unless users pay a fee. And several prominent conservative activists and politicians have been trying to define a wide range of content related to sexuality and gender identity as pornographic. This has been driving library book bans, restrictions on drag performances, limits on academic freedom, and more.

And it's not just state Republicans on the porn freakout beat. Such prominent lawmakers as Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio), Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), and Rep. Paul Gosar (R–Ariz.) have railed against pornography in recent years. Conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has opined that we should ban it.

In 2022, an initiative called "Project 2025"—spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, with more than 50 conservative groups on the advisory board—released a manifesto on what Republicans should do if they take control of the federal government again next year. Porn "has no claim to First Amendment protection," writes Heritage President Kevin D. Roberts in the document's forward, adding that it "should be outlawed" and that the "people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned."

Whatever happens with this Oklahoma bill, I don't think it will be the last we see of such attempts to target all sorts of sexual expression.

Modern American conservatism is mental illness.

Dusty Deevers

Yeah, I bet they are.

...who also put forth legislation to repeal no-fault divorce.

Mental illness.

 

[UKMikey]

But is sexting in OK while Hispanic an act of terrorism?

 

[McLaren]

Growing a bit concerned at how popular it's becoming for these weirdos to attack the idea of divorce. No abortion, now no leaving your husband. I've seen this story before & it wasn't written for some chuckle **** to go, "Hey, that sounds like something we should have in real life".

 

[Danoff]

Growing a bit concerned at how popular it's becoming for these weirdos to attack the idea of divorce. No abortion, now no leaving your husband. I've seen this story before & it wasn't written for some chuckle **** to go, "Hey, that sounds like something we should have in real life".

It's weird how much women remain under attack.

 

[Liquid]

The parallels with the attitude towards females of the Taliban, ISIS or Iran continue.

 

[TexRex]

Oh come on!

New Florida bill would allow up to $5 million to pay for Trump legal fees

A new Florida bill would create a fund that would allow up to $5 million in grants to pay the legal fees of former President Donald Trump, or any other Florida resident running for president who ha…

www.wfla.com

A new Florida bill would create a fund that would allow up to $5 million in grants to pay the legal fees of former President Donald Trump, or any other Florida resident running for president who has been “subject to political discrimination.”

SB 1740, which was filed earlier this month by Senator Ileana Garcia (R-Miami), would create the Defending Freedom Fighters Trust Fund. The bill has the support of Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis.

“We’ve got a Florida Man — Donald Trump — running for President, and he’s facing ongoing legal challenges from Democrats in New York, Washington DC, and Atlanta,” Patronis said in a statement.

Patronis called the four criminal cases against Trump a “fake witch-hunt.”

“Thank you to Senator Garcia who had the guts to fight back against the corrupt Biden regime and put freedom, justice and her constituents first,” he said.

The bill would provide grants to “qualified persons” to pay for any legal fees for criminal charges “brought by a U.S. public entity.” The bill would go into effect upon the passing of SB 1738, which lays out the conditions for the fund.

If passed, the fund would expire in July 2028, unless it’s terminated sooner.

The money for the fund would come from voluntary contributions that can be made when residents apply for a Florida driver’s license, according to the bill. Residents can already opt to contribute $1 to various other charities when applying for a license, such as Florida Heart Research Institute, League Against Cancer, Disabled American Veterans, Department of Florida, and Support Our Troops.

Additional money could be allocated by legislative appropriations.

Nikki Fried, the chair of the Florida Democratic Party, blasted Republicans for proposing the bill amid an affordability crisis in the state.

“What this shows you is who the Florida GOP is loyal to because it’s certainly not the people of Florida,” Fried said in a text message to POLITICO. “Senator Garcia’s victim-card bill is a disgrace and should inflame any Floridian who cares about where their tax dollars are going.”

Mental. Illness.

 

[TB]

If this gets passes, how long will it be until they find out that they're siphoning off money from the Heart Research Institute, League Against Cancer, Disabled American Veterans, Department of Florida, and Support Our Troops to fund this BS?

 

[TexRex]

If this gets passes, how long will it be until they find out that they're siphoning off money from the Heart Research Institute, League Against Cancer, Disabled American Veterans, Department of Florida, and Support Our Troops to fund this BS?

Obviously anyone who has a problem with that is a traitor to America

 

[HenrySwanson]

How the Hindu Right Triumphed in India

A razed mosque, a new temple, and the rise of Narendra Modi.

www.newyorker.com

Article about the rise of the Right in India, including an interview with Mukul Kesavan.

Do you think it’s overstating things to say that what we saw this week is the most important symbolic moment in the past several decades in India?

No, no, it’s not overstating things. Basically, there is and was a nationalist project other than the anti-colonial one that began in 1925 with the foundation of the R.S.S., an organization which explicitly had a kind of Hindu majoritarianism at the center. The R.S.S. always felt alienated from the Congress Party and anti-colonial nationalism, because it tried to create a unifying ideology for what is essentially a subcontinent that’s as large as Europe. And it did so by standing European nationalism on its head. Instead of arguing that there’s a kind of prior homogeneity which constitutes the nation, the Congress Party nationalism argued that the Congress represents the Indian nation because it represents its diversity. It’s a kind of zoological nationalism that says, Look, India is a human jungle. We are the zoo. We, in a sense, are representative of all these different communities.

It’s this peculiar, pluralist nationalism that’s detested by the R.S.S. and Hindu-majoritarian movements, which actually wanted to model themselves on a certain kind of conservative mid-European nationalism based on notions of homogeneity.

The reason that this is symbolically so important is that the Ram Mandir was the ramp which brought the B.J.P. to power. It allowed them to create this astonishing mobilization of Indians for political purposes. It helped the B.J.P. get into government, in the late nineteen-nineties, and then Modi ran with it. And, while he has achieved and consolidated his political power through two elections and an absolute majority, I think it’s always been the larger ambition of the R.S.S., which is in a sense Modi’s progenitor, to literally reconstitute the Indian Republic. There is a sense in which they think of the period between 1947 and 1950, when the constitution was written, as one where the soul of India was suppressed, and they would like to do it over again.

The entire conception of the Indian state, Indian society, Indian religion—it feels like something larger has happened than just the wearing away of Congress secularism and its popularity.

In his book on India, Perry Anderson argued essentially that the Congress was always a Hindu majority party, and that it represented upper-caste Hindu interests. He also argues something that is routinely argued by the Hindu right, which is that there was a kind of cumulative resentment over the centuries of the suppression of Hindus and their culture, and that it was inevitable that a nationalist project in India, especially after Partition, would in fact be a principally Hindu enterprise.

I think this is a facile argument. If you were to ask Muslims both rich and poor, north and south, whether they think that India in 2013 just before Modi’s ascension was a different place in terms of their place in it than it is now, I think they’d say yes. So I don’t think that’s a good historical explanation, because I can tell you existentially, and I speak as a privileged middle-class Hindu, but even I can tell, regardless of where your political sympathies are, you can tell that the tenor of India ten years after Modi has taken over is radically different.

The question is, How did he become so popular? What is it that allowed him to win an absolute majority? That’s the fair question. If you take 1984 as a kind of starting point, because it’s the first major pogrom in a big city, to argue that between 1984 and 2024, there was some inevitability about a gathering Hindu project, I would argue that you could certainly see the milestones. [In 1984, following the assassination of Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards, thousands of Sikhs were murdered in communal violence in New Delhi and other Indian cities.] But, if there is a joker in the pack, it is Modi

 

[TexRex]

Huh.

[Language warning for the article proper. It's censored according to forum standards as transcribed below.]

While touting “family values” agenda, the Zieglers were on the “hunt” for threesome partners, police report reveals - Florida Center for Government Accountability (FLCGA)

While Republican power couple Christian and Bridget Ziegler publicly pushed for “family values” and backed an agenda widely viewed as anti-LGBTQ, they

flcga.org

While Republican power couple Christian and Bridget Ziegler publicly pushed for “family values” and backed an agenda widely viewed as anti-LGBTQ, they were secretly on the “hunt” for threesome lovers and had prior concerns the woman who alleged Christian sexually assaulted her was too “broken” to properly consent to their advances, newly released police reports from the now-closed rape investigation reveal.

Among the startling evidence recovered from Christian’s cell phone, according to the report, was a list of women, including the alleged sexual assault victim’s name, with a one-word subheading: “****.”

Police recovered text messages between Christian, the now former chairman of the Florida GOP, and Bridget, a Sarasota County School Board meeting who cofounded the national group Moms for Liberty, regarding their previous relationship with the woman who alleged Christian raped her on Oct. 2.

The report indicates that the couple first engaged in a three-way sexual encounter with the woman roughly three years ago, and it was on Feb. 19, 2021 that Christian texted his wife to “come home, stop, and pick up [the woman] to play again and be crazy,” according to the police report.

Christian further wrote to his wife that the woman “was an alcoholic, nice person with some issues” but with “no drama,” which “turns him on.”

Bridget was worried that the woman was “going through some ****,” and wrote that “she prefers confident empowered people,” according to the report.

“I just don’t want to feel like we ever take advantage of anyone (I know it’s always been consensual) but she seems … ‘broken,’” Bridget wrote her husband in an eerily prophetic text. “I don’t know – that’s the vibe I pick up from her – and my nature is more likely to help her versus … ya know.”

Christian Ziegler concluded that the couple needed “to hunt for somebody new.”

Two and a half years later, on Oct. 2, 2023, Christian would be accused by the woman of raping her while she was drunk on tequila and unable to consent. That day he had offered the woman a threesome involving Bridget, but then told her his wife couldn’t make it. The woman canceled, but Christian arrived at her apartment anyway.

She later alleged he then raped her, while Christian told police he had consensual sex with her. Police have closed the rape investigation with no charges filed, while a separate video voyeurism case remains under review at the State Attorney’s Office concerning Christian’s recording of the sex act with the woman, allegedly without her knowledge.

“Our review is active and ongoing,” State Attorney Ed Brodsky told the Trident. “We are working closely with the Sarasota Police Department and are unable to comment further at this time.”

Christian Ziegler met the woman years before at the Joyland nightclub in Bradenton, according to the newly released information from police. The woman told detectives Ziegler “had been sexually battering her for years, and she never felt like she could say no to him.” She also told detectives Ziegler had entered her house on a prior occasion by climbing through an unlocked window.

Detectives recovered a Dec. 16, 2021 text message on Ziegler’s phone that appears to corroborate part of her story. “I can come thru window,” he wrote her at 11:24 p.m.

The report also shed new light on the investigation in the days following the alleged rape. When detectives interviewed the victim, they noted the woman appeared as if she had been drinking and “observed a partially empty bottle of tequila sitting on her bar.”

The manager of a nearby restaurant visited by the woman on the day of the incident told police she appeared to be intoxicated, “looked troubled and couldn’t walk very well.”

After detectives interviewed Ziegler in early November, they discovered he performed numerous Google searches on his phone regarding sexual assault allegations, including, “What is the average settlement for a premises liability sexual assault case,” and, “How sex crimes are investigated and prosecuted in the state of Florida.”

Christian, whom the woman said liked to communicate in Instagram “vanish mode,” also searched for “Can vanish mode messages be recovered on Instagram.”

Christian also searched for “OnlyFans,” an internet subscription service featuring sex workers, followed by a search for “remove subscriptions from list.”

The controversy over the allegations led to his ouster from his chairmanship of the Republican Party of Florida. While Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis publicly called for Christian’s resignation, he’s been silent on Bridget Ziegler, whom he personally endorsed for school board and appointed to the state’s Walt Disney oversight committee, where she continues to sit.

She has pushed many DeSantis-backed measures in Sarasota schools that have been widely criticized as discriminatory to the LGBTQ community and also helped formulate Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

While Bridget Ziegler vacated her position at the conservative non-profit Leadership Institute, where she trained conservative parents to run for school boards around the country, she remains on the school board, despite calls for her resignation by countless residents and all four of her colleagues on the board.

Look I genuinely don't care what anyone does in their personal lives*, but when those actions run counter to what they preach, or that for which they advocate for state intervention, you better believe I'm going to note the hypocrisy.

*Basically the only exception is those perpetrating rights violations, such as by coercing sexual contact counter to the consent of any involved party.

 

[UKMikey]

At least he resigned but they want her head* as well for being an enabler. Cancel culture!

*Not that kind of "head". Get your mind outta the gutter

 

[TexRex]

Schools Report Bomb Threats Following Libs of Tiktok Anti-LGBTQ Posts

Almost a dozen schools or school districts contacted by VICE News reported a surge in bomb threats and harassment following the posts.

www.vice.com

They're terrorists. It's really as simple as that.

Huh.

It also isn't libelous if it's factual--it can't be--and the correlation reported on is factual as reported.

Also "woman." I don't buy it. That's definitely a tranny. You can always tell.

 

[TexRex]

Not human. Vermin. Be a real shame if they try to rough the wrong person or people up and instead get put down like the vermin they are. When you violate the rights of others, you lose your rights.

 

[TexRex]

Anti-Choice Group Used Phone Data To Target Planned Parenthood Visitors Nationwide

A national anti-abortion group used cell phone location data to target visitors of Planned Parenthood clinics in 48 states with abortion misinformation, according to an investigation from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

The Veritas Society, a nonprofit created by the Wisconsin Right to Life, used a data broker system called Near Intelligence to target people whose cell phone location data showed they had visited any of the 600 Planned Parenthood reproductive health clinics across the country. Wyden detailed his office’s findings Tuesday in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, urging the FTC to better protect location data.

Wyden’s office found that Veritas Society hired an advertising agency to use Near Intelligence’s website to draw a line around each Planned Parenthood clinic and clinic parking lots. Anyone with a cell phone who stepped into those targeted areas were served social media ads with anti-abortion messaging or abortion misinformation. The senator began investigating Near Intelligence in May 2023 after The Wall Street Journal revealed Veritas Society was peddling abortion misinformation using cell phone data.

The Veritas Society ad campaign ran from late 2019 through the summer of 2022, after the Supreme Court repealed federal abortion protections, according to Wyden’s investigation. The Veritas Society reported that in 2020, in Wisconsin alone, the organization served over 14 million advertisements to people who visited abortion clinics as well as “ads to those devices across the women’s social pages, Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat,” according to a web page that has since been removed.

The Wisconsin Right to Life and Near Intelligence did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Data privacy has become increasingly important since Roe v. Wade fell in June 2022, and over a dozen states criminalized abortion care. Cell phones effectively track everywhere a person goes, and data brokers like Near Intelligence are legally allowed to buy and sell this information. Tech giants like Google pledged to delete the location data of users’ visits to abortion clinics after Roe fell, but the company did not keep their promise. Location data can be weaponized against abortion providers or people seeking care by anti-choice lawmakers and groups like Veritas Society.

Several abortion-rights states passed legislation to safeguard location data after the Supreme Court repealed federal abortion protections, anticipating that data privacy would be the next point of attack for the anti-abortion movement.

Veritas Society touts itself as “leading the way in pro-life digital marketing technology,” according to its website, which adds: “Imagine: Reaching pregnant women when the danger to their unborn children is greatest – when Mom is in the midst of making a life-or-death decision.”

“Took the first pill at the clinic? It may not be too late to save your pregnancy,” one social media ad read from Veritas Society, according to The Wall Street Journal investigation.

If someone clicked into the ad, they were directed to a website that gave them two options: “I want to undo the abortion pill” or “I am thinking about the abortion pill.” Reversal of a medication abortion is not scientifically possible, though the rhetoric is often used by anti-choice organizations.

The Wall Street Journal uncovered how the anti-abortion group was targeting visitors of reproductive health clinics; Wyden’s office built off of the publication’s investigation by revealing how widespread Veritas Society’s ad reach was.

“If a data broker could track Americans’ cell phones to help extremists target misinformation to people at hundreds of Planned Parenthood locations across the United States, a right-wing prosecutor could use that same information to put women in jail,” Wyden said in a Tuesday press release.

“Federal watchdogs should hold the data broker accountable for abusing Americans’ private information,” Wyden added. “And Congress needs to step up as soon as possible to ensure extremist politicians can’t buy this kind of sensitive data without a warrant.”

Near Intelligence is currently being investigated by the SEC and filed for bankruptcy at the end of last year. Wyden is urging the FTC to block any sale of the data collected from users who visited Planned Parenthood clinics when Near Intelligence sells off its assets.

Read Wyden’s letter to the FTC and SEC in full [PDF download link].

I mean it tracks that when vermin don't respect individual sovereignty and consent, vermin also aren't going to respect privacy.

Related:

Republicans block attempt to add rape, incest exemptions to Missouri’s abortion ban • Missouri Independent

Missouri Republicans were unable to push a bill to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid reimbursements to a vote.

missouriindependent.com

Republicans thwarted an effort to add rape and incest exceptions to Missouri’s near-total abortion ban on Wednesday but were unable to push a bill to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid reimbursements to a vote.

Under Missouri law, abortion is illegal except in cases of a medical emergency when “a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

The Senate debated a bill Wednesday evening sponsored by state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Arnold, that would change Missouri law to make Planned Parenthood ineligible to receive reimbursements from MO HealthNet, the state’s Medicaid program.

“This is an attempt to once and for all, make it clear in statute that… the state does not want any funds to be abused or provided to a provider who is affiliated with Planned Parenthood,” Coleman said Wednesday.

But most of Wednesday’s debate was dominated by Democratic senators opposing Coleman’s bill and offering amendments seeking to add rape and incest exemptions to Missouri’s abortion ban.

“Their privacy was violated. And now we’re saying that the government is going to force them to give birth to a child,” said state Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat from Olivette. “It’s gone too far.“

Wednesday’s showdown was the first time the Senate has debated a bill since the session began Jan. 3. Clearing the path to get it on the floor meant that a bill renewing provider taxes essential to the Medicaid system was set aside, along with proposals to make it more difficult to pass a constitutional amendment and to expand a tax credit to help pay for private school tuition.

Planned Parenthood hasn’t received any state money for nearly two years, as legal fights over past GOP defunding efforts play out in court. Planned Parenthood officials have said they’ve continued treating all patients, even without reimbursements coming in.

The two Planned Parenthood affiliates operating in the state – Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri – no longer provide abortions in Missouri.

But Planned Parenthood clinics in Missouri do still provide other reproductive health care, such as cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment and contraceptives.

Planned Parenthood leaders have argued that eliminating their services would land a devastating blow to the public health safety net.

The Senate jumped straight to legislation defunding Planned Parenthood Wednesday out of concern that the issue would get latched onto a bill extending taxes essential to funding Medicaid.

That’s what happened in 2021, forcing the legislature into special session to detangle the issues and ensure the taxes were not jeopardized.

The provider taxes, known as the federal reimbursement allowance, are levies on hospitals, nursing homes, ambulance providers and pharmacies used as the required match for federal Medicaid funds.

The taxes provide more than $4 billion in direct and matching funds for the $17 billion program

State Sen. Lincoln Hough, a Republican from Springfield and sponsor of the provider tax extension, was first in line for debate and reluctantly set his bill aside so the Senate could debate Coleman’s legislation. He worries any restrictive language could endanger federal approval of the taxes, and so he wants to remove the expiration date so the issue doesn’t have to be debated again.

“To me, it does not make sense to move forward on a path like this when we don’t have an outcome,” Hough said.

Democrats opposed to Coleman’s bill forced roll calls on each exemption they offered.

State Sen, Lauren Arthur, a Democrat from Kansas City, called Missouri’s abortion law “one of the most archaic and mean-spirited extreme bans in the entire country,” adding that further restricting Missourians’ right to choose their healthcare provider is “a slap in the face after people have been living under this extreme abortion ban.”

Most of Wednesday’s debate had little to do with Planned Parenthood.

As Coleman’s bill was brought up for debate, McCreery introduced two amendments that would add exemptions to Missouri’s abortion ban for victims of rape and incest.

“They’ve already survived enough trauma,” McCreery said. “They shouldn’t have to go to another state to get compassionate medical care.”

She pleaded with her colleagues to have “an ounce of compassion” for victims.

Republican senators, however, did not greet McCreery’s amendments warmly.

“I can’t imagine that Missouri is going to be a better place tomorrow if we have individuals inflicting abortion on kids, because that number is zero today,” said state Sen. Bill Eigel, a Republican from Weldon Spring who is also a candidate for governor.

During his State of the State address last month, Gov. Mike Parson touted that since the constitutional right to an abortion was overturned in June 2022, there had been zero abortions in Missouri. However, the governor did not account for legal abortions that happened under the state’s medical emergencies exemption.

In 2023, there were 37 abortions performed in Missouri, and between June and December of 2022, there were 15 abortions performed in the state, according to data obtained by The Independent from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services.

State Sen. Mike Moon, a Republican from Ash Grove who has filed legislation to impose criminal penalties on women who seek abortions, spent 12 minutes listing well-known people conceived through rape or incest after suggesting authorities shoot or castrate rapists.

State Sen. Rick Brattin, a Republican from Harrisonville, agreed.

“If you want to go after the rapist, let’s give him the death penalty. Absolutely, let’s do it, but not the innocent person caught in between,” he said. “That by God’s grace may even be the greatest healing agent you need in which to recover from such an atrocity.”

State Sen. Barbara Washington, a Democrat from Kansas City, arguing in support of the rape and incest exemption, said her great grandmother was raped by her slave master. Washington said she is alive because of that rape, but that the rape was so traumatic for her great grandmother that she died by suicide.

State Sen. Greg Razer, a Kansas City Democrat, asked if his Republican colleagues were advocating for a 9-year-old girl who is raped to be forced to give birth.

“What they’re arguing is intellectually indefensible,” he said. “It makes no sense. And it’s morally indefensible.”

While rape would be “mentally taxing” for anyone, said Republican state Sen. Sandy Crawford, it doesn’t justify an abortion.

“God is perfect,” she said. “God does not make mistakes. And for some reason he allows that to happen. Bad things happen.”

The Senate adjourned just before 6 p.m. after voting down both of McCreery’s amendments along party lines and with an amendment still pending from Democratic state Sen. Doug Beck of Affton that would allow girls 12 and under to obtain abortions.

Debate ended when Brattin tried to attach language repealing a sunset date on last year’s ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for youth.

The upcoming 3rd Congressional District Republican primary provided a political undercurrent to Wednesday’s debate. Coleman, the sponsor of the Planned Parenthood bill, is an announced candidate, as is former state Sen. Bob Onder of Lake St. Louis.

The legislation could provide Coleman with an advantage winning anti-abortion endorsements in the campaign.

Onder was endorsed by the Missouri Right to Life PAC in his now-abandoned bid for lieutenant governor, but that endorsement doesn’t carry over to the 3rd District, Right to Life Executive Director Susan Klein said Wednesday.

“Every race,” Klein said, “is looked at separately.”

So exceptions and exemptions are a distraction, as any such carve out removes the decision from the individual, whete it singularly belongs, and puts it on a politician that may, as seen in the case of Kate Cox of Texas, disregard specific circumstances in favor of a preferred outcome.

That said, I'm okay with exceptions and exemptions being proposed when a legislative majority is going to ban abortion anyway, because it puts the proposition of exceptions and exemptions before the legislative majority to accept or, as here, reject.

Without a rape exception or exemption, one whose individual sovereignty is violated first by the rapist is violated second by the state.

This is interesting:

"State Sen. Mike Moon, a Republican from Ash Grove who has filed legislation to impose criminal penalties on women who seek abortions, spent 12 minutes listing well-known people conceived through rape or incest after suggesting authorities shoot or castrate rapists.

State Sen. Rick Brattin, a Republican from Harrisonville, agreed.

'If you want to go after the rapist, let’s give him the death penalty. Absolutely, let’s do it, but not the innocent person caught in between,' he said. 'That by God’s grace may even be the greatest healing agent you need in which to recover from such an atrocity.'"

So rape is, at its foundation, a violation of individual sovereignty. No individual has a natural claim to any part of another's body, even as consent to use or occupancy may be granted. Consent is granted conditionally and at the sole discretion of the individual, subject to revocation at any point.

An unwanted pregnancy is one to which the individual, for what reason notwithstanding, has not consented or no longer consents. No individual, no matter the degree to which their rights are recognized by the state, has a natural claim to any part of another's body...and that includes the unborn.

A state actor that prohibits abortion, threatening loss of property, freedom, or even life for exercising dominion over one's own body, consistent with indiviual sovereignty, perpetrates the exact same rights violation as the rapist. Republicans have gone on record advocating for execution of those perpetrating such a rights violation, but somehow I don't expect this to be a principled stance.

Seeing as the state is unlikely to carry out the execution of a legislator or other state actor what perpetrates such a rights violation by prohibiting abortion, I'm compelled to ask again (I haven't gotten a good answer when I've asked before) if it would be wrong for one so violated by the state to use force, up to and including lethal force, against a culpable agent of the state in an effort to cease the rights violation. Shooting dead a rapist may not put an end to rape broadly but it would certainly prevent that rapist from striking again and may cause any other would be rapists to hesitate to violate another's rights.

 

[HenrySwanson]

A question:

Would Palestinians be justified in using force (including lethal force) against agents of the Israeli state, before and after the current war?

 

[TexRex]

ChatGPT mustn't be answering satisfactorily.

 

[Imari]

A question:

Would Palestinians be justified in using force (including lethal force) against agents of the Israeli state, before and after the current war?

The short answer is yes. This is self-defense. Palestinians had their land taken from them by force, and more recently have had their territories occupied by a foreign power. Reasonable force is absolutely justified and legal in these situations.

However, that doesn't mean that all force is justified. Force specifically targeted against non-combatants is almost never going to be justified. Use of certain types of weapons like biological or chemical weapons is unlikely to be justified. The rules of war still apply for the most part.

Israel is also permitted to use reasonable force in self-defense, but that doesn't mean it's permitted to attempt to wipe out an entire state of people, civilians and all. And in this specific situation, where most of the world agrees that Israel is an illegal occupying force in Gaza and the West Bank (and has been for some time), it's generally not even considered particularly legitimate for them to respond to attempts from the Palestinians to free themselves. When you're an occupying power it's no longer self-defense, it's an aggressive act that results from a situation that you created. Until the occupation is ended and control of Palestinian territories surrendered, Palestine and Palestinians will have justified reasons for aggression and Israel will not.

If I imprison someone in a room and they stab me in the arm trying to escape, I can't claim that it's self-defense when I break their legs with a sledgehammer so that they can't hurt me again. They would be behaving reasonably given the situation, I would be behaving like a complete monster. I started it, and if I'm going to keep someone locked up for whatever insane reasons I've concocted then it's on me to make sure that no one's getting hurt.

 

[HenrySwanson]

How would that work, practically speaking?

Would the politicians be legitimate targets?
Soldiers on the border?
Voters for said politicians?

 

[Imari]

How would that work, practically speaking?

Would the politicians be legitimate targets?
Soldiers on the border?
Voters for said politicians?

You mean how does war work, practically speaking?

There's a difference between morally justified and the realities of open conflict. Just because something is morally justified doesn't mean that it won't be overridden by diplomacy and international politics.

Realistically, it's a judgement call as to whether you think it will help or hinder your goals and whether there will be meaningful consequences for your actions afterwards. It's war. The "rules" largely exist because of the threat of potential punishment from the greater powers or the international community for disobedience.

"Legitimate targets" are what you think you can justify if you get pulled up for war crimes, and in a conflict like this that extends basically all the way through the international community that's probably going to depend far more upon international relations than it is any actual facts of what went on. Which sucks, because it means a bunch of innocent people are going to die in horrible ways, and then a bunch of rich arseholes are going to swank around for months or years trying to convince each other that the side that won was the good guys all along.

 

[TexRex]

You mean how does war work, practically speaking?

There's a difference between morally justified and the realities of open conflict. Just because something is morally justified doesn't mean that it won't be overridden by diplomacy and international politics.

Realistically, it's a judgement call as to whether you think it will help or hinder your goals and whether there will be meaningful consequences for your actions afterwards. It's war. The "rules" largely exist because of the threat of potential punishment from the greater powers or the international community for disobedience.

"Legitimate targets" are what you think you can justify if you get pulled up for war crimes, and in a conflict like this that extends basically all the way through the international community that's probably going to depend far more upon international relations than it is any actual facts of what went on. Which sucks, because it means a bunch of innocent people are going to die in horrible ways, and then a bunch of rich arseholes are going to swank around for months or years trying to convince each other that the side that won was the good guys all along.

FYI, that one's making a bad faith effort to connect rights violations perpetrated during war to rights violations perpetrated by the enforcement of laws which denigrate the individual sovereignty of those carrying unwanted pregnancies through prohibition of abortion.

I previously asked if use of force, including lethal force, would be wrong against agents of the state enforcing such laws and went so far as to inquire as to the culpability of individuals (and therefore the morality of use of such force against them) who vote on the issue of prohibiting abortion, wherein the politicians for whom they vote campaign on such prohibitions and ultimately contribute to the passage of legislation which may be enforced and thus violate rights. The purpose of the use of force being to dissuade enforcement (thereby stopping the rights violations), not to punish the culpable or to instigate a change in the law.

It's a clumsy comparison, especially given the diminished degree of culpability in the absence of elected agents of the state who campaign on support for wars in which little concern is shown for the lives of non-combatants.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You mean how does war work, practically speaking?

There's a difference between morally justified and the realities of open conflict. Just because something is morally justified doesn't mean that it won't be overridden by diplomacy and international politics.

As in, this part:

Until the occupation is ended and control of Palestinian territories surrendered, Palestine and Palestinians will have justified reasons for aggression and Israel will not.

Who decides the threshold for if an act of aggression is morally right or morally wrong.

Which ties in with the human rights violations from the proscription of abortion, and potential reactions to it. In that case I presume it would be even more murky since there are no set "rules" like there are with war (if the rules have any bearing on what people decide is moral or not, that is).

 

[TexRex]

lol. lmao.

Tommy Tuberville On Alabama Deeming Embryos Children: Great! Wait, Bad!

In the span of three minutes, the GOP senator said he was “all for it,” didn’t agree with it, supports IVF and just needs to read the bill. (There is no bill.)

www.huffpost.com

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said Thursday that he is “all for” the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision that frozen embryos are children.

He also said he opposes the effects of the ruling. And that he supports fertility treatments like IVF that are now being denied to women across his state as a result of the court’s ruling. And that he wants to read the legislation more closely before saying more — except there is no legislation.

“I was all for it,” the Republican senator said cheerfully. “You know, you just gotta look at everything going on in the country. It’s just an attack on families, an attack on kids. You know, anything we can do for the future of our young people because they’re our No. 1 commodity.”

His remarks made no sense, as families are now being denied the ability to try to have children through IVF. “We need to have more kids,” he continued. “We need to have an opportunity to do that. I thought this was the right thing to do.”

When it was pointed out that Alabama health clinics are halting IVF treatments as a result of the court decision, Tuberville started talking about abortion.

“Well, that’s for another conversation,” he said. “I think the big thing is, right now, you protect, you go back to the situation and try to work it out to where it’s best for everybody. I mean, that’s what the whole abortion issue is about.”

Except the court’s decision wasn’t about abortion. And the concern now is that families in Alabama might not have access to IVF anymore.

“I know, I know,” Tuberville said about that. “I agree, people need to have access. We need more kids. We need people to have the opportunity to have kids.”

HuffPost asked what he would say to women in Alabama who will no longer have access to IVF treatments as a result of this ruling. Tuberville said it was “unfortunate” and “hard.”

“Really hard. Because again, you want people to have that opportunity,” he said. “We need more kids. I’d have to look at the entire bill, how it’s written. I have not seen it.”

Except there is no bill. This was an Alabama Supreme Court decision, not a bill passed by the state legislature.

“Well, I know that,” Tuberville snapped. “But I haven’t looked at it. This is a state issue.”

Huh?

When another reporter asked if he thought the court’s decision would alienate swing voters in the November general election, the senator shrugged.

“I don’t know, it might, some,” he said, downplaying its significance. “You don’t hear a lot of folks talk about it. That’s not a big conversation.”

Tuberville then backtracked and agreed that there is a conversation about this happening right now, and that fertility treatments are not a partisan issue.

“We don’t need that,” he said of the court’s decision halting IVF treatments. “We need people to have an opportunity to have kids.”

Another reporter asked Tuberville if he disagrees, then, with the court’s decision to treat embryos as children. This time, he simply feigned ignorance on it.

“I’d have to look at what they’re agreeing to or not agreeing to,” he replied, before walking away. “I haven’t seen that.”

Lotta stupid conservatives but Tater Tommy manages to stand out.

Would Palestinians be justified in using force (including lethal force) against agents of the Israeli state, before and after the current war?

Who decides the threshold for if an act of aggression is morally right or morally wrong.

"Is this right or wrong?"

"I mean who decides anyway?"

 

[HenrySwanson]

"Is this right or wrong?"

"I mean who decides anyway?"

It's a serious question.

Palestinians have their rights violated everyday, and even more so during periods of war.

If they were to pursue an aggressive response, how would they be judged, morally speaking if the act took place outside of the current war. The reason for the act could similarly be to dissuade the enforcement of the rights violation.

Is that morally right....

Taking it back to abortion, you'd probably have stronger support for use of force against the idiots who are culpable for the Alabama decision. And yet, if someone was to kill a politician who advocated and voted for abortion on demand until the 24th (or further) week of gestation, would that similarly be morally justifiable? Bear in mind that at current polling a lot of Americans support abortion but with certain restrictions.

 

[Imari]

Who decides the threshold for if an act of aggression is morally right or morally wrong.

The individual. Morality is an individual thing, and so the individual decides if an act is in accordance with their morals or not.

But you're probably conflating moral, justified, and legal all in the same sentence. People tend to use these words in overlapping ways anyway, so let's break out the ways that you could judge a situation or set of actions to be "right" or "wrong" into broader language.

You could do it through a legal framework (of which there are many to choose from), through the framework of natural rights, or from a personal framework (of which there are again many to choose from). And probably others, but those seem to be the main groups. Also, most frameworks have more nuance than "right" and "wrong", but that's not really here nor there.

Natural rights and legal frameworks are the only ones I find worth exploring. Much like religion, personal morality most often boils down to people finding excuses to do the things that they wanted to do anyway, and so any discussion boils down to people yelling at each other for not choosing the same axioms. Natural rights and legal frameworks have explicit and implicit rules, and so there's valid discussion as to how those apply to any given situation.

It's a serious question.

You might want to back up then and do some studying on your own, because you should really have an answer to that question already before you start talking about justifications and morals. GTPlanet is not here to feed you stuff that you could have read on Wikipedia on your own.

If they were to pursue an aggressive response, how would they be judged, morally speaking if the act took place outside of the current war. The reason for the act could similarly be to dissuade the enforcement of the rights violation.

How would they be judged, or how should they be judged? The answer to your question you can see in historical newspapers. It's been done. The conflict between Palestine and Israel has been going on for decades, there are numerous cases of aggression outside of explicit wars.

 

[TexRex]

Palestinians have their rights violated everyday, and even more so during periods of war.

If they were to pursue an aggressive response,

"I'm wholly incapable of--and disinterested in--good faith engagement, and so I'm compelled to acknowledge rights violations of individuals and subsequently frame defense against those violations as an act of aggression. This certainly isn't the first time I've been so compelled and it's unlikely to be the last."

...

Senator calls LGBTQ+ people 'filth,' says most don't want them here

A state senator said during a public forum in Tahlequah that LGBTQ+ people are “filth,” and that he and his constituents don’t want them in “our state.”

www.tahlequahdailypress.com

A state senator said during a public forum in Tahlequah that LGBTQ+ people are "filth," and that he and his constituents don't want them in "our state."

The panel at the Feb. 23 Legislative Update, sponsored by Tahlequah Area Chamber of Commerce, included State Rep. David Hardin, R-District 6; State Sen. Blake "Cowboy" Stephens, R-District 3; State Sen. Tom Woods, R-District 4; and State Sen. Dewayne Pemberton, R-District 9.

Audience member Cathy Cott asked two questions, the first on why State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters was "bullying" school districts and referring to teachers as "terrorists."

"My second question is, why does the Legislature have such an obsession with the LGBTQ citizens of Oklahoma and what people do in their personal lives and how they raise their children?" Cott said.

All four panelists answered the first part of Cott's question, but passed over the second until Cott stood up and demanded an answer.

"Is there a reason why you won't answer about the 50 bills targeting the LGBTQ community in the state of Oklahoma? If you are ashamed of those bills, they shouldn't be there," Cott said.

Cott pointed out that a 16-year-old had died earlier this month following a physical altercation at an Owasso High School. Cause of death has not yet been definitively established, though police said a preliminary report indicated a beating at the hands of other students didn't kill Nex Benedict.

After Hardin and Stephens responded, Woods said that while his "heart goes out" regarding the teen's death, he represents a constituency.

"We are a Republican state – supermajority – in the House and Senate. I represent a constituency that doesn't want that filth in Oklahoma," Woods said.

Several audience members clapped at his statement, while others appeared shocked.

"We are a religious state and we are going to fight it to keep that filth out of the state of Oklahoma because we are a Christian state – we are a moral state," Woods said. "We want to lower taxes and let people be able to live and work and go to the faith they choose. We are a Republican state and I'm going to vote my district, and I'm going to vote my values, and we don't want that in the state of Oklahoma."

Woods represents Adair County, plus parts of Cherokee, Sequoyah and Delaware counties.

Hardin, who was the first to answer Cott's question, said that while he hasn't seen 50 bills targeting LGBTQ+ individuals, a few have gone through.

"How you live your life personally, that's between you and God. I have no judgment in that, but what goes through our public schools – I will fall back on my faith," Hardin said. "I want to make sure that at least the children in our public schools have that faith ... what I want to make sure of is that our young children have the right to grow up with that faith, and if they choose to change it, that's fine."

In response to Cott's comment about Nex Benedict, the LGBTQ+ student who died, Hardin said, "That's horrible. I don't know about that case but I'll check into it."

Stephens said that as an educator, he had taken an oath to educate and not "indoctrinate" students.

"We are there to educate our students, love and nurture them and help them to be successful," Stephens said.

Michael Stopp, who chairs the Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee, moderated the forum. Stopp said the death of any student is tragic and what happened to Nex Benedict is "terrible."

"I do want to caution everyone on what they read in social media,and even sometimes in the [traditional] media. What we found out this morning ... what we were hearing about the incident in Owasso, was not completely accurate and was, in many ways, blown out of proportion," Stopp said.

Stopp said he's seen no news about how the student actually died, and that there has been finger-pointing at the school district.

"The school system sent out a press release stating they followed all procedures, including having a nurse speak to the children that were in the fight, and gave the parents the opportunity to call the police and press charges," Stopp said.

Pemberton did not respond to Cott's question during the forum, but afterward, he said he didn't believe there was any animosity in the Legislature toward the LGBTQ+ community.

"Legislators represent their constituents and their desires. More often, it's the majority of the constituents they represent. Legislators can never satisfy all people all the time," Pemberton said. "I can't confirm the number [of bills Cott] presented in the meeting today."

When asked what he thought of Woods' characterization of LGBTQ+ individuals as "filth," Pemberton said, "No comment."

After the forum, Woods reiterated his stance on the matter.

"I support my constituency, and like I said, we're a Christian state, and we are tired of having that shoved down our throat at every turn. I'll let my words [spoken here] speak for theirselves, but that is my statement, and I stand behind it, and I stand behind the Republican Party values, and that is my statement," Woods said.

Modern American conservatism is mental illness.

 

[McLaren]

Don't worry; as an Oklahoma born citizen, I can confidently predict LGBTQ+ folks don't want to live in that filth, either.

 

[Imari]

It's kind of annoying how many Christians see "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself" and automatically mentally tack on as "unless they're a filthy queer or tranny in which case they're not human anyway so just beat them to death or something".

That's not what Christ taught and that's not following God's will, that's being a ****ing bigot and trying to use your religion as an excuse.

 

[UKMikey]

Don't worry; as an Oklahoma born citizen, I can confidently predict LGBTQ+ folks don't want to live in that filth, either.

The filth is as high as an elephant's eye. A GOP elephant.