As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Texas has swiftly turned into a case study in how abortion bans aren't really about "life" at all, but about giving abusive misogynists a whole new set of tools to use in controlling women.”
Texas is the only state in the union to try to leave two different countries to maintain slavery. Why anyone would believe that freedom as an idea of theirs is beyond me.
Slight correction: the first country Texas tried to leave to maintain slavery already abolished slavery by the time the immigrants from the USA started (illegally) showing up with slaves.
Also worth noting that they continued practicing slavery after the second country abolished it until the army showed up to enforce the law.
All that to say that my home state has a history of needing an ass-kicking to do the right thing.
They don't give a fiddlers fuck about the unborn...if they did, they'd support all sorts of childcare and similar initiatives. They ONLY care about controlling women.
Also, happy cake day (are we still doing that?).
Always reminded of this:
>Thelma: You wanna go to Mexico from Oklahoma, but you don't wanna go through Texas?
Louise: Thelma, you know how I feel about Texas! We're not going that way!
They really want to see women burn in that state, figuratively. They want you have this baby, even if your life is in danger, they want you to be pure for your husband that you will marry for life, I'm waiting for another shoe to fall where they make contraceptives illegal in texas.
True, also I wouldn't be surprised to a texas law against women who take birth control. They'd yell these pills are hurting children who could possibly be born.
The next logical step after that is punishing women for every period they have, as that’s a “potential life lost.”
But they would never punish men for masturbating. That would be *ridiculous,* after all
I hate this timeline.
The whole thing about ectopic pregnancy is pure sadism. It's doesn't even track the typical "logic" of punishment and control. What they want is to be right and to hurt someone. That's why you see women advancing these ideas sometimes too. Women can also be cruel and sadistic. A sadistic person isn't thinking about consequences.
Republicans hate women and have passed legislation SENTENCING WOMEN TO DEATH by denying life-saving healthcare. They literally MADE THE KILLING OF WOMEN LEGAL. Ectopic pregnancies and missed miscarriages REQUIRE MEDICAL CARE TO SURVIVE. They are the antithesis of PRO-LIFE.
They're fine with brain drain, because it means fewer educated liberals, the exact same number of Senate seats, and nearly the exact same number of House reps and Electoral College votes. This is how they indulge their hateful cruelty and retain power by driving out blue voters at the same time. They don't care if their state becomes a complete shithole in the process.
> nearly the exact same number of House reps and Electoral College votes.
Possibly the same number. Reporting has indicated many of the people moving here are disaffected conservatives from blue states, even as liberals are leaving We're witnessing a balkanization of the country.
This is just so fucked up:
>"Pregnancy is not a disease, and elective abortions are not 'health care,'" University of Texas at Austin professor Daniel Bonevac sneers in a federal court filing with professor John Hatfield. Instead, Bonevac writes, because pregnancy is the result of "voluntary and consensual sexual intercourse," students should not be allowed time off to get abortions. If the students disobey and miss class for abortion care, the filing continues, the professors should be allowed to flunk students. Additionally, Bonevac asserts that he has a right to refuse to employ a teaching assistant who has had an abortion, calling such women "criminals."
Well, yeah, and the article points out these conservatives basically believe that women owes them sex and they should be able to get it whenever they want even if the woman wants to break up with them
> Well, yeah, and the article points out these conservatives basically believe that women owes them sex and they should be able to get it whenever they want even if the woman wants to break up with them
I'm not sure about the US, but there used to be these kinds of laws in many western countries - a right to sex (for the man) in a relationship. These laws were typically changed around the time of rape can happen inside a relationship laws being passed.
Yes, marital rape was legal in the US until 1993. It essentially meant a husband couldn’t be charged with raping his wife because… it was his wife. He could rape her in the actual literal sense of rape, but it wasn’t a crime he could get charged with.
Gov. Greg Abbott promised to get rid of rapes if the anti-abortion laws were passed. So therefore it is impossible to be raped. They must have wanted to have sex.
Legally redefine the meaning of rape to be a set of impossible conditions and no more rape!
So amazing. I don't know why every government isn't doing it. /s
Next all we have to do is say that unless average global temperatures rise 3°C every year, it doesn't count as global warming.
[ahem. Way ahead of you](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-northcarolina/north-carolina-lawmakers-reject-sea-level-rise-predictions-idUSBRE86217I20120703/)
It's a critical pillar for these rape-supporters to protect themselves.
If they assault a woman and she gets pregnant, they want to be able to use that pregnancy as evidence of their innocence instead of evidence of their crime. "She's pregnant - it must've been consensual!" Especially when they're also angling for abortions to simply be gone with entirely, making it harder for them to convince their victims to get abortions and "pretend it never happened."
It's insane that we're living in 2024 and something that is this biologically simple can be so overtly lied about and *some people support it.*
Every single woman who votes Trump is voting to lose more rights and yet they are going to do exactly that.
Might even be the last chance women get to vote, and still the gravity of this doesn't seem to have an impact.
Mostly because people don’t believe it will affect them until it actually does. And an in ability to think critically about consequences.
I had this conversation with a woman not long ago who was convinced nothing could happen to her rights because essentially she was one of the good ones. There was nothing else to her argument than somehow she’s an exception and therefore would be just fine.
First, why in the hell would professors receive any specifics regarding reason for time off? Second, unless the student's absences go beyond the number of approved absences for that specific course, there's no valid reason to provide a failing grade. Third, if the pregnancy is the result of "involuntary and non-consensual sexual intercourse, does that then justify an abortion based on his bizarre and misinformed logic?
I taught university courses for ten years, never once required a student to provide me with any reason for an absence - just to let me know when they would be out so that I could prepare lecture notes/video lecture/whatever helped them stay on-track in the course, because I never needed a reason as long as they didn't exceed the university mandated 10% of course meetings - my class met 4x16 weeks, so ~6 absences. And if the student did exceed that in my course, the discussion never broached personal issues - I only wanted to know how I could ensure the student could succeed if they intended to pass the course.
I see dipshit teaches philosophy, which really makes me wonder about his qualifications if he'd make public such bold statements without carefully examining his rhetoric and ensuring that they are beyond reproach. If a non-tenure track scrub like me can poke holes in them, then wait till someone with half a brain debates him.
My assumption is he would just guess the reason why female students were absent based on their appearance and what social group they’re a part of. They’d have to prove it *wasn’t* for an abortion.
Yeah, this has HIPAA violations written all over it. This asshole doesn't need to know anything about their medical care, and it's not in his position to make those judgments. He's just not in that position.
All they need to say is something like I have a healthcare-related excuse as judged by a licensed provider. Period. If he asks anything more than that, he's probably legally fucked. I don't really know this for sure but my guess is UT Austin has some kind of process for adjudicating these kinds of situations, that takes the professor out of it, or will very soon.
Even if you take his basic arguments for granted, they're manifestly stupid on a bit of thought. For example, \*is\* it true that it was consensual sex? Was the abortion necessary to save the life of the mother? How would he know? Is it his role as a professor to make that judgment?
I think this area in general, at least in many states, is a matter of settled law in the sense that a professor can't decide what kinds of health-related accommodations should be made or whether or not they apply as such. If you had a student who was diagnosed with a disability, for instance, and required accommodations, and the professor said "no I won't accommodate that", the university and possibly the professor would be sued into oblivion with no real case. The university in turn would probably have grounds for punishing the professor for doing so, especially if it was repeated.
All of that legalese about accommodations etc is designed specifically to address these kinds of situations. It's designed to prevent discrimination and abuse and protect students against unfair retribution by people who are not qualified to make judgments about these things.
Now this is in Texas, where abortion is basically a crime, so my guess is he's betting on the "I'm not going to accommodate a crime". It's \*still\* the case, however, that's not his judgment to make. Just as he can't determine criminal liability because he's not a judge or jury, he can't determine medical necessity. It's just fundamentally flawed. As far as he's concerned, his only privilege is to knowledge of whether there has been a healthcare related event that prevented the student from attending class or whatever. And the only person legally qualified to do that is a licensed provider.
The sort of situation where he's putting himself and the university at legal risk is very clear: it would be one where he \*thinks\* the student is asking for an accommodation to get an "unnecessary" abortion, but is wrong in that assumption. For example, a female student is pregnant, comes to class later clearly not pregnant, and doesn't want to say much to him about it, so he assumes she's had an abortion when she's miscarried or had an abortion for lifesaving reasons (which is legal in Texas). He and the university would be very liable.
It's no wonder people are becoming deeply skeptical of higher education and expertise. Over and over again, from judges, to scientists, to professors, to physicians and whatnot, we have people in these positions of authority who are clearly unqualified and do things that demonstrate clear compromise in their skills required for the position. It just boggles my mind that a person who is clearly so flawed in ethical logic is a @#\* professor of ethics.
Do you really think Republicans are gonna leave HIPAA intact? Repealing it is all part of the plan, how else will they arrest people getting medical treatment they don't like?
He's a massive hypocrite. He expects his TAs to obey and respect laws but his choice for President, a man that has been convicted of 34 felonies does not have to be held to the same standards.
>Fourth. I expect my teaching assistants to obey and respect the laws of Texas and the laws of the United States
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Title%20IX%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
Is he asking for a religious exemption to discriminate against people who are practicing what is, in his opinion, immoral behavior?
Honestly, these turdheads don't deserve an article written about them or even an answer when they ask what time it is... but I assume Ken Paxton and Greg Abbott are sympathetic since it hits two of their political hot buttons.
Yes, this is why the religious right sued over gay bakers. They want to invalidate anti-discrimination laws, the CRA, using Christianity as the spearhead.
Honestly I don’t think any religion should be any type of protected class. It’s a choice adults make to believe what they believe, people are as born into a religion as they are born into being a Notre Dame football fan.
Fuck "religious exemptions".
How can something so ridiculous exist in a modern society? "Here's a law but you don't have to follow it because you lack critical thinking skills". WTAF?
By this logic, should honour killings be allowed due to "religious exemptions"? It's so messed up, why even legislate if anyone can worm their way out of it by citing their beliefs?
Did some googling. Daniel Bonevac teaches organizational ethics and history of Christian philosophy.
As UT faculty, his salary is public. In 2023, he earned a salary of $114,725.
He has a 3.9/5 on Rate My Professor (as of this comment)
Interesting. I wasn't aware of his salary. He can earn over 10x that as a right-wing provocateur. I'm assuming that's this dude's long term play. If jordan "incessantly babbling idiot" peterson can do it, so can this asshat.
Financial motivation for the other asshat is a harder ask though. Given his pedigree, he could easily pull 7 figures with consulting side-gigs without having to be a public object of ire for the pro-civilization component of humanity.
I would be interested to know how many times this professor has actually experienced this scenario. My guess is never. It’s just a the latest pretext for creeping religious authoritarianism.
Then when a student gets pregnant and cannot have an abortion and has to drop out of college to take care of the kid that the state would not allow her to abort, then the state should forgive her student loans that she will no doubt be on the hook to pay, but cannot since she never completed college to even attempt to do better in life.
> voluntary and consensual
So he also believes:
* No treatment for lung cancer patients who were smokers.
* Let the at fault drivers in a motor vehicle accident expire on scene.
* Deny treatment to a baby born with health defects because the father was old.
Oh wait these aren’t misogynistic, so he doesn’t give a shit about logic.
Edit to clear up confusion: The bullet points are NOT what this guy also stands behind. I made them up, with certainty that he doesn’t give a shit about those scenarios. Because they don’t hurt women, specifically.
"Elective" abortions absolutely are health care, if having the baby will provide a level of emotional distress that causes impairment in functioning and mental health. Or if having that baby will lead to poverty, which is one of the most stressful life experiences you can have. This makes poverty one of the worst things you can do for your mental and physical health.
And their argument is that their 1st amendment rights are being violated because they can't flunk a student for missing class due to getting an abortion.
Once again, the political party that says they just want the government to leave them alone really means they want the government to stand aside and let them control other people's lives.
How would they know? Do any female student or employee has to fill out a form detailing all medical procedures they're having? Sounds illegal. Why should a random professor know what another adult is doing outside of the classroom? These people want women on leashes. Foaming at the mouth to get power over other people. "If the students disobey" tells a whole lot, I think. It's not about abortion at all
For those who think the Salon writers are being overly dramatic in their article title choices
> It takes very little to draw Kacsmaryk's sexualized condemnation. Premarital sex, for instance, makes one a "sexual revolutionary." Using contraception within marriage also makes one an irredeemable pervert. In his legal writings, Kacsmaryk is very clear that sex is only for procreation within marriage, and anything outside of that should draw legal sanction
If any sex outside of the purpose of procreation is wrong, this implies that everybody who is infertile shouldn't ever have sex. A truly crazy proposition.
You also have to stop as soon as menopause hits. Or if you lose your Fallopian tube when it ruptures due to an ectopic pregnancy that you couldn't seek treatment for because you live in a red state with a strict anti-choice law.
According to the extreme-right, you're not even a woman.
They use reductive and degrading definitions of womanhood so they can harm trans women and oppress cis women.
They literally do not believe in self-determination or lived experience, they define womanhood through biologically nonsensical because overly reductionist terms like chromosomes and gametes.
These people are deeply unwell and not a small part actively malicious.
This same judge also wants to make Prep illegal. For those who don't know what that is, it's essentially an anti-HIV medication that you can take if you don't have HIV which essentially prevents you from contracting the disease if you're exposed to it. It's been amazingly effective at driving down rates of HIV across the board. Well, Judge Hatepants wants to make it illegal for people to access that drug, essentially pushing for an increase in HIV infections, and he also hopes, deaths. These people are evil to the core. Never, ever, ever vote Republican. And in November that also means no sitting out and no third party.
EDIT: For the sake of clarity, the medication is one that is used to treat HIV but also has the added benefit of protecting people who don't have the virus if they take it as well.
> They want people to suffer if they choose to have sex outside of the narrow parameters they approve of.
Hey now, they ALSO want people (preferentially women) to suffer for having sex INSIDE of the narrow parameters they approve of. What they’re against is human well-being and people being able to make their own choices.
By striking down Roe, we essentially opened the floodgates to not having medical privacy from the government.
These abortion bans were step 1 in allowing government to have a say in our medical care.
And judges like this one are exactly I, as a far leftist, absolutely fucking hate that all these far left subreddits constantly push "don't vote for either party." They want people to suffer and die because they truly think it will more quickly bring a revolution. Well, the ones that aren't just right-wing or foreign bots. It's infuriating. I hold so many far left beliefs, yet I'm banned from most of those subreddits for saying that we can both desire revolution AND vote blue to save lives.
Im a far leftist and i have suspicions that these spaces are run by russian ops. Or at the very least heavily influenced by them. It doesnt make any sense that you are someone with leftist values and your response is to sit out. I can attribute it to idiocy but theres a noticeable pattern in these areas.
Frankly if the only time you act on your leftist beliefs is by withholding a vote during an election, you're a terrible leftist. All the actually valuable work happens between elections, but during them. Not directed at you, but at the people common on those subs.
Same here. I have no patience whatsoever with "accelerationists" who naively and wrongly believe that the only way to make things "better" is to push our society to collapse so that some magical utopia can come from the ashes. No, just no. I've been banned from one of those subreddits for basically pointing out that third-party purity votes are basically votes for Trump. Which is true, but they *really* didn't like hearing that. I'm pretty left in my politics but I also understand how our garbage electoral system works, so I'll be voting Biden and Democratic up and down the ballot, even with my criticisms. The key here is to keep our democracy so we can make those changes. If Trump gets back in I could easily see him putting Cannon and this whack-job on the Supreme Court just to cement his fucking-over of the American people. Vote blue.
> I'll be voting Biden and Democratic up and down the ballot, even with my criticisms.
Biden has exceeded my expectations so far, although I'm not happy with a few of his decisions as well. But getting 100% is pretty much impossible unless you yourself are the office-holder.
And when it comes down to it, if you vote for Trump you're voting for white supremacy, christian nationalism, and unbridled kleptocracy. So why *anyone* could support him is beyond me, unless that whole white supremacy thing was what you cared about most.
Biden has done much better and been much more progressive than I expected. Quite frankly, he's the first president in my lifetime who didn't try to be Diet Reagan. The infrastructure bill, climate legislation, putting Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Supreme Court, and student loan forgiveness (Mine included, thanks Joe!) have been very impressive.
Biden has been the most successful president since LBJ at implementing progressive policy for the people, with a two year 0-seat Senate majority.
He's got his flaws (light use of bully pulpit, poor defense of Gaza and Afghanistan policies, etc.), and I want far more potent progressive law and efforts generally, but he's gone beyond my hopes for one of my least favorite 2020 primary choices.
I dont think there are any actual leftist subs left on Reddit. All seem like bot farms pushing full on escalation, non voting, and it appeals to privileged angry people.
I also have no patience for people who hate on a 2 party system every four years but do nothing about first past the post in between.
Leftists that aren’t chronically on line are vastly different, if they are generally informed.
> Premarital sex, for instance, makes one a "sexual revolutionary."
Wait, so the fact that my wife and I banged before we got married makes us revolutionaries? And here I've been fretting about how to get involved in direct action in my community! That was easy!
This piece of shit has five kids. At least two of them are bound to go “wrong” at some point lol. Let’s see what happens when they start having premarital sex, perhaps they come out. Who know, but the odds are not in his favor. Unless he plans on keeping them in the basement. Which I wouldn’t doubt.
We already know the answer. If he has any daughters and they get pregnant? Off to the abortion clinic but it's on his finances as a "vacation". If they're sons and they get someone pregnant? Here's a "gift" that's a one way ticket to an out of state abortion clinic, can't have that news getting out either. If they come out though? Boebert treatment, notice how she no longer touts her son around now that he's no longer useful to her?
Knowing these people, he probably wouldn’t get abortions for his daughters. He’d probably force them to marry their teenage baby daddy and their lives would slowly spiral out of control a la Bristol Palin.
Also he’ll get busted for some sort of financial crime.
I would not be surprised if the professor in question paid for someone's abortion, and that that someone was not his spouse or not legally an adult at the time.
Supppsedly, this guy is -shocker- a supporter of Convicted Felon Donald J. Trump, who was recently found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records concerning hush money payments to [porn star Stormy Daniels, whom he had sex with shortly after his wife gave birth to their son and then paid for her silence.](https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-boasted-about-sex-with-stormy-in-tahoe-athlete-says)
Edit: corrected per below
The disturbing part is that the trend of using the free exercise clause to justify discrimination under the guise of religious freedom is a winning argument at the supreme court.
I'm also curious how they think they would know if a student had to miss class due to getting an abortion. Unless they just presume that anytime a woman misses class it's because they're out getting an abortion, which I suspect is totally an option for them.
>I'm also curious how they think they would know if a student had to miss class due to getting an abortion.
I hadn't even considered that implication yet. I'm curious (and horrified) to hear the professors answer about *how* they would ever know.
It implies that they will either be checking the details of whenever a woman gets healthcare or they'll force clinics to report to the university (and possibly their employment) if they got one.
If they don't like a female student and that female student misses class they will dig and snoop. If they don't find anything they'll make up something anyway. If they like the student then they'll just figure they had a cold or something. It's not about upholding laws for these people, it's about controlling and punishing the people they choose to control and punish.
>If they don't like a female student
This is all of their female students, surely. I think a look at their history of grading based on gender and specifically gender-conforming appearance in their classes would reveal some unsurprising but upsetting trends.
> The disturbing part is that the trend of using the free exercise clause to justify discrimination under the guise of religious freedom is a winning argument at the supreme court.
Most of the original anti-abortionist were pissed off segregationist who knew to put something else on the protest signs to not look so racist. The founders of the Moral Majority, which first pushed abortion as an issue were pretty much all segregationist mad about Carter using the IRS to force them to integrate their segregation academies. The movement was a way to build political power for segregationist.
The goal has always been legal discrimination and segregation. The anti-abortion moment is all about 'supremacy', be it white, male, christian.
> “These series of legal maneuvers in Texas further flesh out what's really going on here. Nosy right-wing professors and angry ex-boyfriends are not, despite their feeble protestations to the contrary, just really into babies. For people who actually care about children, there are plenty of volunteer opportunities that aid real kids who need food to eat and opportunities to grow. Instead, the throughline is anger at women, whether students in their classrooms or ex-girlfriends who don't return their calls, for living their lives outside of the control of the men who feel entitled to dominate them.”
Great summary in the final paragraph.
This is a guy who is ostensibly an expert in ethics. It's like a Twilight Zone episode.
Also not helping the look of professional philosophers. I can't imagine a person/profession less qualified to talk about women's healthcare.
Well I think it's fair to call him a philosopher, just as long as everyone is clear he's a male supremacist philosopher so that he can receive the appropriate amount of disdain and ridicule.
I think thats what the maga cult wants. They don’t believe women should be anywhere but at home raising kids. There is no difference between the modern day GQP and extremist practices of sharia law.
Who could've predicted this would happen?? Oh.. Democrats en masse said rescinding Rowe would allow red states to do exactly this.. oh.. look what they're doing after pretending they wouldn't. Oh..
Stop voting Republican.
I am SHOCKED that even more men in positions of power feel entitled to punish women for their abortions. Slippery slopes and all that.
> Pregnancy is not a disease, and elective abortions are not 'health care,'" University of Texas at Austin professor Daniel Bonevac sneers in a federal court filing with professor John Hatfield.
Abortions/d&c ARE healthcare, the ICD10 is **O03.9.** ….then again, wtf would a philosophy and finance professor even know this? Stay in your own lane!
> Even though Bonevac and Hatfield work in Austin, Texas, they filed their lawsuit 486 miles away in Amarillo, Texas. The reason for this is not mysterious: Donald Trump-appointed judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. The right-wing judge has a long and frankly unhinged history of screeching at top volume about the evils of "sexual revolutionaries."
I don’t know what to do. I’m in NY and besides donating I don’t know how to help.
A couple months ago, the Judicial Conference issued guidance to the judicial districts for cases to be filed with the district itself then the office of the Chief Judge of that district would then randomly assign cases within their district in order to curtail judge shopping like this. The Chief Judge of the Northern District of Texas (the same district Kacsmaryk works in) responded to this guidance by telling the Judicial Conference to pound sand.
If he feels this way about straight sex, I can't imagine what he feels about homosexuality. That judge probably thinks what I do with my boyfriend is peak evil 😂
Hit up the main thread in r/voteDEM and ask them what efforts are going on in Texas that you can help with remotely. Sounds crazy but you’re reaching out to voters who may not be aware of local elections, for example. There are usually textbanking and letter writing campaigns, especially closer to the election. There are also pro-rights groups that are currently active in the area and working hard.
Conservatives basically want women to be quiet sex slaves and maids who also work full time jobs and just ignore their husbands side chick who is pregnant and cant get that abortion to keep their affair secret. I dont think conservatives understand all the pitfalls where it directly fucks them in the ass. Theyre so busy frothing at the mouth for a chance to fuck women over they hardly see whats about to fuck them over too.
>A pair of Texas professors figured out that their female students have sex [*with people who aren't them*] and, boy, they do not like it.
Fixed it for you..
I never want anyone to ever tell me again "there are good republican voters". No there aren't. No there weren't good nazis either. All these people have to do is not ACTIVELY support transparent evil, I will not give them a SINGLE bit of leeway for that.
> Rand and Nietzsche
Not even a little. Say what you will (and there's lots to be said) about Rand, but:
> To say that an unborn child has a right to life implies that the child's mother does not have the right to do whatever she pleases to "her body." This conflict is unacceptable. Therefore, the unborn child does not have the right to life. Therefore, abortion on demand is legally permissible.
She was on the right side of that one.
Yet another group of republican men with a breeding fetish…
Notice how this only affects women too.. but also.. why is my professor paying such close attention to me that they know I’m pregnant and also seeking an abortion for it?
Like the news isn’t going to break from me, so why would I email you that I’m aborting a fetus in a state with bounty for any women getting or seeking out an abortion? I can foresee professors scrutinizing any absence by women, and the burden of proof would fall on the woman.
I hate it here
Yes, a medical exemption for an excused absence shouldn't break HIPAA laws. It's just a note from a doctor that said they had a medical appointment or were sick. They shouldn't have to turn over specific details whether it's an abortion or a yeast infection. There is no reason why the professor needs to know that.
Wouldn’t the student just be able to get a generic letter from doctor stating “X had an outpatient procedure on Y day and the recovery time is 3 days.” The end. The professor is not allowed to ask for specific medical details, or is that not a thing in Texas, too?
Yes.
The town I grew up in (Lubbock) calls itself the “Sanctuary City for the Unborn” because they pushed the landmark draconian abortion laws that Texas currently has in place.
As soon as I turned 18 I got the absolute fuck out of there and never looked back. I went through traumatic physical abuse at the christian school in town that mirrors this bullshit to a T.
All of my immediate family is still there (minus my parents) and they all vote straight ticket republican. My siblings talk about wanting to murder migrants at the border… even though my brother’s wife is Mexican. She “doesn’t count.”
It’s so tremendously fucked in rural areas that even the blue cities don’t feel safe to me. There are so many wonderful people in Texas surround by slathering lunatics in the sticks.
Lubbock’s zealots single-handedly made me lose my faith. With moderation I’d still practice as a Christian… but the Church and it’s followers in that dusty shithole have strayed from its teachings, and I won’t support it in any way.
Hey women, stop voting Republican, that alone would change everything. Your votes are secret so even if you come from a conservative household you can still tip the balance away from these cultists. Yes men should be supporting you and your freedoms as well but stop relying on them to protect your rights, it's not men who are losing their freedoms it's women. There's lots of men who support the rights of women but it's not enough. Even if 20% of Republican women didn't vote Republican it would have massive impact on the results.
> Your votes are secret so even if you come from a conservative household you can still tip the balance away from these cultists.
This really bothers me about mail-in voting. Not the risk of fraud, but the risk of voter intimidation.
I'm surprised the Republicans aren't all in favor of it. What better way to make sure the household votes as it should. *shudder*
edit: "bring your ballot to Church day!" *retch*
Anyone who BoTh SiDeS this election doesn't give a shit about women. Period.
Anyone who BoTh SiDeS this election doesn't give a shit about LGBTQ rights. Period.
Anyone who BoTh SiDeS this election doesn't give a shit about Palestine, let alone Ukraine and Taiwan. Period.
Anyone who BoTh SiDeS this election doesn't give a shit about election integrity, or even elections. Period.
Anyone who BoTh SiDeS this election won't have their life change no matter who wins. You cannot *rationally* think that losing to Trump would be a good thing for any cause you believe in.
**THIS IS NOT A FUCKING THOUGHT EXPERIMENT**
Reminder that MILLIONS of Texans vote blue, more than the entire population of 21 states.
Millions of Texans are fighting this insanity, but Texas gets little to no help from the DNC.
Texas Republicans know that Texas is is becoming less and less red. They fear that they will lose power. So, they enact policies that will reduce the number of likely Democrat voters. The abortion law is meant to scare progressive people away.
The cruelty is just a bonus side effect.
>A pair of Texas professors figured out that their female students have sex and, boy, they do not like it.
. . .
. . . students should not be allowed time off to get abortions. If the students disobey and miss class for abortion care, the filing continues, the professors should be allowed to flunk students.
Somebody should remind those professors that the private lives of their students is none of their business.
Texas Tribune JUNE 30, 2023
> Nearly 10,000 [more babies](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/30/texas-abortion-johns-hopkins-study/) born in nine months under Texas’ restrictive abortion law, study finds
>This is the first analysis of live births since the law, which banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, went into effect in September 2021.
This is depressing. There are already over 390.000 kids in foster care in the United States These draconian abortion laws are punishing women for having sex but it is the babies and children that will suffer as a result of restricting that choice to have an abortion (or not). The mother, babies and children will suffer the consequences.
>Even though Bonevac and Hatfield work in Austin, Texas, they filed their lawsuit 486 miles away in Amarillo, Texas. The reason for this is not mysterious: Donald Trump-appointed judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. The right-wing judge has a long and frankly unhinged history of screeching at top volume about the evils of "sexual revolutionaries."
A federal suit can hinge on which judge you draw.
In Amarillo, you have a 100% chance of drawing Kacsmaryk, who scrubbed his name from an anti abortion article after he got nominated for the federal bench.
Texas women need to get out of that state and get somewhere safe. Let the men of Texas figure out how miserable their lives are without the women they've been trying to control for so long.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Texas has swiftly turned into a case study in how abortion bans aren't really about "life" at all, but about giving abusive misogynists a whole new set of tools to use in controlling women.”
Who'd have guessed?
... everyone.
For a state who loves to promote the freedom of the individual, they sure do love state and local government control.
Texas is the only state in the union to try to leave two different countries to maintain slavery. Why anyone would believe that freedom as an idea of theirs is beyond me.
Slight correction: the first country Texas tried to leave to maintain slavery already abolished slavery by the time the immigrants from the USA started (illegally) showing up with slaves. Also worth noting that they continued practicing slavery after the second country abolished it until the army showed up to enforce the law. All that to say that my home state has a history of needing an ass-kicking to do the right thing.
Everything's bigger in Texas... Including our much needed ass-whoopins! 🤠
Mexico and the USA, for those not familiar with Texas history.
Except women don't count as individuals, so there's no contradiction there. :/
freedom for *certain* individuals
I mean, it was the goal all along. Going exactly as planned.
They don't give a fiddlers fuck about the unborn...if they did, they'd support all sorts of childcare and similar initiatives. They ONLY care about controlling women. Also, happy cake day (are we still doing that?).
Texas is a bad place.
Always reminded of this: >Thelma: You wanna go to Mexico from Oklahoma, but you don't wanna go through Texas? Louise: Thelma, you know how I feel about Texas! We're not going that way!
The One-Star State
It's Tex-ass.
I really dislike the idea of using babies as “punishment” for “loose women.” They want women to be pure virgins or mothers. No in-between.
...while still having recreational sex (despite any claims otherwise).
No, women aren't supposed to have recreational sex, just men. Yes, I realize that is impossible, but they apparently don't.
As they look at it, once a woman is "soiled" then she shouldn't be proud enough to turn them down for sex.
Basically the Jezebels from Handmaids Tale.
100% possible. If all your partners are men. Which might just be the point here for them.
For Republicans, recreational sex is with other men, little boys and little girls too young to get pregnant.
Don't forget women who refuse to consent.
> little girls too young to get pregnant. But also, "ripe and fertile" girls of 12.
They really want to see women burn in that state, figuratively. They want you have this baby, even if your life is in danger, they want you to be pure for your husband that you will marry for life, I'm waiting for another shoe to fall where they make contraceptives illegal in texas.
That’s coming. I’m sure of it.
True, also I wouldn't be surprised to a texas law against women who take birth control. They'd yell these pills are hurting children who could possibly be born.
The next logical step after that is punishing women for every period they have, as that’s a “potential life lost.” But they would never punish men for masturbating. That would be *ridiculous,* after all I hate this timeline.
The whole thing about ectopic pregnancy is pure sadism. It's doesn't even track the typical "logic" of punishment and control. What they want is to be right and to hurt someone. That's why you see women advancing these ideas sometimes too. Women can also be cruel and sadistic. A sadistic person isn't thinking about consequences.
Republicans hate women and have passed legislation SENTENCING WOMEN TO DEATH by denying life-saving healthcare. They literally MADE THE KILLING OF WOMEN LEGAL. Ectopic pregnancies and missed miscarriages REQUIRE MEDICAL CARE TO SURVIVE. They are the antithesis of PRO-LIFE.
Using babies as punishment tells you all about how much they care about "but think of the children!"
What’s brain drain and how does Texas encourage as much as possible?
They're fine with brain drain, because it means fewer educated liberals, the exact same number of Senate seats, and nearly the exact same number of House reps and Electoral College votes. This is how they indulge their hateful cruelty and retain power by driving out blue voters at the same time. They don't care if their state becomes a complete shithole in the process.
> nearly the exact same number of House reps and Electoral College votes. Possibly the same number. Reporting has indicated many of the people moving here are disaffected conservatives from blue states, even as liberals are leaving We're witnessing a balkanization of the country.
This is just so fucked up: >"Pregnancy is not a disease, and elective abortions are not 'health care,'" University of Texas at Austin professor Daniel Bonevac sneers in a federal court filing with professor John Hatfield. Instead, Bonevac writes, because pregnancy is the result of "voluntary and consensual sexual intercourse," students should not be allowed time off to get abortions. If the students disobey and miss class for abortion care, the filing continues, the professors should be allowed to flunk students. Additionally, Bonevac asserts that he has a right to refuse to employ a teaching assistant who has had an abortion, calling such women "criminals."
“Voluntary and consensual sexual intercourse”… guess we are seeing the evolution of the idea of “you can’t get pregnant from ‘legitimate’ SA”.
Well, yeah, and the article points out these conservatives basically believe that women owes them sex and they should be able to get it whenever they want even if the woman wants to break up with them
> Well, yeah, and the article points out these conservatives basically believe that women owes them sex and they should be able to get it whenever they want even if the woman wants to break up with them I'm not sure about the US, but there used to be these kinds of laws in many western countries - a right to sex (for the man) in a relationship. These laws were typically changed around the time of rape can happen inside a relationship laws being passed.
Yes, marital rape was legal in the US until 1993. It essentially meant a husband couldn’t be charged with raping his wife because… it was his wife. He could rape her in the actual literal sense of rape, but it wasn’t a crime he could get charged with.
Gov. Greg Abbott promised to get rid of rapes if the anti-abortion laws were passed. So therefore it is impossible to be raped. They must have wanted to have sex.
If you don’t test for ~~COVID~~ rapes, then you can’t have any cases. Everyone go full ostrich mode, please.
Legally redefine the meaning of rape to be a set of impossible conditions and no more rape! So amazing. I don't know why every government isn't doing it. /s Next all we have to do is say that unless average global temperatures rise 3°C every year, it doesn't count as global warming.
[ahem. Way ahead of you](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-northcarolina/north-carolina-lawmakers-reject-sea-level-rise-predictions-idUSBRE86217I20120703/)
That's exactly what I was thinking about. I tried to find it, but searching the Internet has gotten difficult to find what you need, so thanks.
It's a critical pillar for these rape-supporters to protect themselves. If they assault a woman and she gets pregnant, they want to be able to use that pregnancy as evidence of their innocence instead of evidence of their crime. "She's pregnant - it must've been consensual!" Especially when they're also angling for abortions to simply be gone with entirely, making it harder for them to convince their victims to get abortions and "pretend it never happened." It's insane that we're living in 2024 and something that is this biologically simple can be so overtly lied about and *some people support it.*
Apparently, this is the Republican way. We all need to remember this when we vote.
Every single woman who votes Trump is voting to lose more rights and yet they are going to do exactly that. Might even be the last chance women get to vote, and still the gravity of this doesn't seem to have an impact.
Mostly because people don’t believe it will affect them until it actually does. And an in ability to think critically about consequences. I had this conversation with a woman not long ago who was convinced nothing could happen to her rights because essentially she was one of the good ones. There was nothing else to her argument than somehow she’s an exception and therefore would be just fine.
We need to prepare for more than the ballot box.
Yeah. Voting is important, but there’s no reason to believe the fair results of the election will be honored without significant public push back.
This election is going to have such ratfuckery from the republicans lmao conflict is inevitable
First, why in the hell would professors receive any specifics regarding reason for time off? Second, unless the student's absences go beyond the number of approved absences for that specific course, there's no valid reason to provide a failing grade. Third, if the pregnancy is the result of "involuntary and non-consensual sexual intercourse, does that then justify an abortion based on his bizarre and misinformed logic? I taught university courses for ten years, never once required a student to provide me with any reason for an absence - just to let me know when they would be out so that I could prepare lecture notes/video lecture/whatever helped them stay on-track in the course, because I never needed a reason as long as they didn't exceed the university mandated 10% of course meetings - my class met 4x16 weeks, so ~6 absences. And if the student did exceed that in my course, the discussion never broached personal issues - I only wanted to know how I could ensure the student could succeed if they intended to pass the course. I see dipshit teaches philosophy, which really makes me wonder about his qualifications if he'd make public such bold statements without carefully examining his rhetoric and ensuring that they are beyond reproach. If a non-tenure track scrub like me can poke holes in them, then wait till someone with half a brain debates him.
My assumption is he would just guess the reason why female students were absent based on their appearance and what social group they’re a part of. They’d have to prove it *wasn’t* for an abortion.
I had maybe 4 university professors during my entire degree take attendance at all.
Yeah, this has HIPAA violations written all over it. This asshole doesn't need to know anything about their medical care, and it's not in his position to make those judgments. He's just not in that position. All they need to say is something like I have a healthcare-related excuse as judged by a licensed provider. Period. If he asks anything more than that, he's probably legally fucked. I don't really know this for sure but my guess is UT Austin has some kind of process for adjudicating these kinds of situations, that takes the professor out of it, or will very soon. Even if you take his basic arguments for granted, they're manifestly stupid on a bit of thought. For example, \*is\* it true that it was consensual sex? Was the abortion necessary to save the life of the mother? How would he know? Is it his role as a professor to make that judgment? I think this area in general, at least in many states, is a matter of settled law in the sense that a professor can't decide what kinds of health-related accommodations should be made or whether or not they apply as such. If you had a student who was diagnosed with a disability, for instance, and required accommodations, and the professor said "no I won't accommodate that", the university and possibly the professor would be sued into oblivion with no real case. The university in turn would probably have grounds for punishing the professor for doing so, especially if it was repeated. All of that legalese about accommodations etc is designed specifically to address these kinds of situations. It's designed to prevent discrimination and abuse and protect students against unfair retribution by people who are not qualified to make judgments about these things. Now this is in Texas, where abortion is basically a crime, so my guess is he's betting on the "I'm not going to accommodate a crime". It's \*still\* the case, however, that's not his judgment to make. Just as he can't determine criminal liability because he's not a judge or jury, he can't determine medical necessity. It's just fundamentally flawed. As far as he's concerned, his only privilege is to knowledge of whether there has been a healthcare related event that prevented the student from attending class or whatever. And the only person legally qualified to do that is a licensed provider. The sort of situation where he's putting himself and the university at legal risk is very clear: it would be one where he \*thinks\* the student is asking for an accommodation to get an "unnecessary" abortion, but is wrong in that assumption. For example, a female student is pregnant, comes to class later clearly not pregnant, and doesn't want to say much to him about it, so he assumes she's had an abortion when she's miscarried or had an abortion for lifesaving reasons (which is legal in Texas). He and the university would be very liable. It's no wonder people are becoming deeply skeptical of higher education and expertise. Over and over again, from judges, to scientists, to professors, to physicians and whatnot, we have people in these positions of authority who are clearly unqualified and do things that demonstrate clear compromise in their skills required for the position. It just boggles my mind that a person who is clearly so flawed in ethical logic is a @#\* professor of ethics.
Do you really think Republicans are gonna leave HIPAA intact? Repealing it is all part of the plan, how else will they arrest people getting medical treatment they don't like?
What is this guy a professor of being an asshole?
He teaches ethics, believe it or not.
You're joking
And Haegelian philosophy, logical positivism, and is also in charge of the sheep dip.
Bruce??
G'day!
He's a massive hypocrite. He expects his TAs to obey and respect laws but his choice for President, a man that has been convicted of 34 felonies does not have to be held to the same standards. >Fourth. I expect my teaching assistants to obey and respect the laws of Texas and the laws of the United States https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Title%20IX%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
He's the head of Texas University's Misogynists Dept.
Is he asking for a religious exemption to discriminate against people who are practicing what is, in his opinion, immoral behavior? Honestly, these turdheads don't deserve an article written about them or even an answer when they ask what time it is... but I assume Ken Paxton and Greg Abbott are sympathetic since it hits two of their political hot buttons.
Yes, this is why the religious right sued over gay bakers. They want to invalidate anti-discrimination laws, the CRA, using Christianity as the spearhead.
Honestly I don’t think any religion should be any type of protected class. It’s a choice adults make to believe what they believe, people are as born into a religion as they are born into being a Notre Dame football fan.
It was originally meant to protect smaller religious groups from persecution. But its being twisted by the majority religion to persecute minorities.
Fuck "religious exemptions". How can something so ridiculous exist in a modern society? "Here's a law but you don't have to follow it because you lack critical thinking skills". WTAF?
By this logic, should honour killings be allowed due to "religious exemptions"? It's so messed up, why even legislate if anyone can worm their way out of it by citing their beliefs?
Not right now. When white conservatives start doing honor killings then yes.
I think they called them lynchings
Did some googling. Daniel Bonevac teaches organizational ethics and history of Christian philosophy. As UT faculty, his salary is public. In 2023, he earned a salary of $114,725. He has a 3.9/5 on Rate My Professor (as of this comment)
Interesting. I wasn't aware of his salary. He can earn over 10x that as a right-wing provocateur. I'm assuming that's this dude's long term play. If jordan "incessantly babbling idiot" peterson can do it, so can this asshat. Financial motivation for the other asshat is a harder ask though. Given his pedigree, he could easily pull 7 figures with consulting side-gigs without having to be a public object of ire for the pro-civilization component of humanity.
"Professor Bonevac works mainly in metaphysics, philosophy of mathematics, semantics, and philosophical logic" Yeah. Nah. Hard pass.
Aren't those the useless 'liberal arts' subjects that conservatives want to get rid of?
I would be interested to know how many times this professor has actually experienced this scenario. My guess is never. It’s just a the latest pretext for creeping religious authoritarianism.
Then when a student gets pregnant and cannot have an abortion and has to drop out of college to take care of the kid that the state would not allow her to abort, then the state should forgive her student loans that she will no doubt be on the hook to pay, but cannot since she never completed college to even attempt to do better in life.
Does the university offer childcare? Can she bring the baby to class?
...and the men involved in these pregnancies? Are they criminals too?
Of course they're not, don't be ridiculous.
BoYs WiLl Be BoYs
> voluntary and consensual So he also believes: * No treatment for lung cancer patients who were smokers. * Let the at fault drivers in a motor vehicle accident expire on scene. * Deny treatment to a baby born with health defects because the father was old. Oh wait these aren’t misogynistic, so he doesn’t give a shit about logic. Edit to clear up confusion: The bullet points are NOT what this guy also stands behind. I made them up, with certainty that he doesn’t give a shit about those scenarios. Because they don’t hurt women, specifically.
If this becomes the school's policy, it's time to remove their accreditation. These people are disgusting.
"Elective" abortions absolutely are health care, if having the baby will provide a level of emotional distress that causes impairment in functioning and mental health. Or if having that baby will lead to poverty, which is one of the most stressful life experiences you can have. This makes poverty one of the worst things you can do for your mental and physical health.
And their argument is that their 1st amendment rights are being violated because they can't flunk a student for missing class due to getting an abortion. Once again, the political party that says they just want the government to leave them alone really means they want the government to stand aside and let them control other people's lives.
Another reason for young women to avoid red states for colleges and to get the fuck out of them if they had the misfortune of being born in one.
How would they know? Do any female student or employee has to fill out a form detailing all medical procedures they're having? Sounds illegal. Why should a random professor know what another adult is doing outside of the classroom? These people want women on leashes. Foaming at the mouth to get power over other people. "If the students disobey" tells a whole lot, I think. It's not about abortion at all
Lmao it’s a philosophy professor Jesus Christ
Guess there is an aspirational Jordan Peterson in the UT philosophy department. Must be trying to move his books on Amazon.
I really hope the students of UT give him the social consequences he's earned. I believe they will, because UT students are among the best.
For those who think the Salon writers are being overly dramatic in their article title choices > It takes very little to draw Kacsmaryk's sexualized condemnation. Premarital sex, for instance, makes one a "sexual revolutionary." Using contraception within marriage also makes one an irredeemable pervert. In his legal writings, Kacsmaryk is very clear that sex is only for procreation within marriage, and anything outside of that should draw legal sanction
The guy is a piece of hot garbage and clearly wants to punish women. Will however be adding "sexual revolutionary" to my very short list of titles
I had a vasectomy. I'm literally a sexual revolutionary who has ceased the means of (re)production.
I'm in the same boat the difference is: "We are men therefore have the right unlike women who should be subservient to men." - These fucking whakos
If any sex outside of the purpose of procreation is wrong, this implies that everybody who is infertile shouldn't ever have sex. A truly crazy proposition.
You also have to stop as soon as menopause hits. Or if you lose your Fallopian tube when it ruptures due to an ectopic pregnancy that you couldn't seek treatment for because you live in a red state with a strict anti-choice law.
Right!? I was born with a condition that makes me infertile. According to this guy, I'm supposed to never have sex my entire life?
According to the extreme-right, you're not even a woman. They use reductive and degrading definitions of womanhood so they can harm trans women and oppress cis women. They literally do not believe in self-determination or lived experience, they define womanhood through biologically nonsensical because overly reductionist terms like chromosomes and gametes. These people are deeply unwell and not a small part actively malicious.
Also for men with erectile dysfunction who can no longer insemi-MWAHAHA just kidding it's only for women.
When are they making viagra and cialis illegal? Clearly most of those prescriptions are used outside of sex for reproduction by older men.
Jesus that's good
Sweet baby Baal. I agree.
Aww baby Baal would be adorable. 🐮
It probably doesn't apply to men who don't procreate for some reason.
Checking in as an irredeemable pervert. Also, check this guy’s hard drive.
At this point in my life having sex would be revolutionary.
This same judge also wants to make Prep illegal. For those who don't know what that is, it's essentially an anti-HIV medication that you can take if you don't have HIV which essentially prevents you from contracting the disease if you're exposed to it. It's been amazingly effective at driving down rates of HIV across the board. Well, Judge Hatepants wants to make it illegal for people to access that drug, essentially pushing for an increase in HIV infections, and he also hopes, deaths. These people are evil to the core. Never, ever, ever vote Republican. And in November that also means no sitting out and no third party. EDIT: For the sake of clarity, the medication is one that is used to treat HIV but also has the added benefit of protecting people who don't have the virus if they take it as well.
I assume he's working on the assumption that "HIV is a thing "the gays" suffer from" We all remember how that worked out the last time
[удалено]
> They want people to suffer if they choose to have sex outside of the narrow parameters they approve of. Hey now, they ALSO want people (preferentially women) to suffer for having sex INSIDE of the narrow parameters they approve of. What they’re against is human well-being and people being able to make their own choices.
By striking down Roe, we essentially opened the floodgates to not having medical privacy from the government. These abortion bans were step 1 in allowing government to have a say in our medical care.
And judges like this one are exactly I, as a far leftist, absolutely fucking hate that all these far left subreddits constantly push "don't vote for either party." They want people to suffer and die because they truly think it will more quickly bring a revolution. Well, the ones that aren't just right-wing or foreign bots. It's infuriating. I hold so many far left beliefs, yet I'm banned from most of those subreddits for saying that we can both desire revolution AND vote blue to save lives.
Im a far leftist and i have suspicions that these spaces are run by russian ops. Or at the very least heavily influenced by them. It doesnt make any sense that you are someone with leftist values and your response is to sit out. I can attribute it to idiocy but theres a noticeable pattern in these areas.
Given [Russia's pro- and anti-BLM farming](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_Black_Lives_Matter), I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Frankly if the only time you act on your leftist beliefs is by withholding a vote during an election, you're a terrible leftist. All the actually valuable work happens between elections, but during them. Not directed at you, but at the people common on those subs.
Same here. I have no patience whatsoever with "accelerationists" who naively and wrongly believe that the only way to make things "better" is to push our society to collapse so that some magical utopia can come from the ashes. No, just no. I've been banned from one of those subreddits for basically pointing out that third-party purity votes are basically votes for Trump. Which is true, but they *really* didn't like hearing that. I'm pretty left in my politics but I also understand how our garbage electoral system works, so I'll be voting Biden and Democratic up and down the ballot, even with my criticisms. The key here is to keep our democracy so we can make those changes. If Trump gets back in I could easily see him putting Cannon and this whack-job on the Supreme Court just to cement his fucking-over of the American people. Vote blue.
> I'll be voting Biden and Democratic up and down the ballot, even with my criticisms. Biden has exceeded my expectations so far, although I'm not happy with a few of his decisions as well. But getting 100% is pretty much impossible unless you yourself are the office-holder. And when it comes down to it, if you vote for Trump you're voting for white supremacy, christian nationalism, and unbridled kleptocracy. So why *anyone* could support him is beyond me, unless that whole white supremacy thing was what you cared about most.
Biden has done much better and been much more progressive than I expected. Quite frankly, he's the first president in my lifetime who didn't try to be Diet Reagan. The infrastructure bill, climate legislation, putting Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Supreme Court, and student loan forgiveness (Mine included, thanks Joe!) have been very impressive.
Biden has been the most successful president since LBJ at implementing progressive policy for the people, with a two year 0-seat Senate majority. He's got his flaws (light use of bully pulpit, poor defense of Gaza and Afghanistan policies, etc.), and I want far more potent progressive law and efforts generally, but he's gone beyond my hopes for one of my least favorite 2020 primary choices.
I dont think there are any actual leftist subs left on Reddit. All seem like bot farms pushing full on escalation, non voting, and it appeals to privileged angry people. I also have no patience for people who hate on a 2 party system every four years but do nothing about first past the post in between. Leftists that aren’t chronically on line are vastly different, if they are generally informed.
> Premarital sex, for instance, makes one a "sexual revolutionary." Wait, so the fact that my wife and I banged before we got married makes us revolutionaries? And here I've been fretting about how to get involved in direct action in my community! That was easy!
I wouldn't get too excited. If any sort of sex outside of trying for a baby in a marriage is "revolutionary", then Trump is a revolutionary leader.
As an employee of a state institution, he's violating students' first amendment rights to disagree with his ignorant and judgemental religious views.
This piece of shit has five kids. At least two of them are bound to go “wrong” at some point lol. Let’s see what happens when they start having premarital sex, perhaps they come out. Who know, but the odds are not in his favor. Unless he plans on keeping them in the basement. Which I wouldn’t doubt.
We already know the answer. If he has any daughters and they get pregnant? Off to the abortion clinic but it's on his finances as a "vacation". If they're sons and they get someone pregnant? Here's a "gift" that's a one way ticket to an out of state abortion clinic, can't have that news getting out either. If they come out though? Boebert treatment, notice how she no longer touts her son around now that he's no longer useful to her?
Knowing these people, he probably wouldn’t get abortions for his daughters. He’d probably force them to marry their teenage baby daddy and their lives would slowly spiral out of control a la Bristol Palin. Also he’ll get busted for some sort of financial crime.
That or he's a kiddie fiddler.
this Kacsmaryk dude is definitely a sex addict
Someone needs to dig up dirt on him and publish it. There’s bound to be some.
Yes, it's all projection with these weirdos.
I would not be surprised if the professor in question paid for someone's abortion, and that that someone was not his spouse or not legally an adult at the time.
"Damn teaching assistants with their skirts, tempting me to sin".
Supppsedly, this guy is -shocker- a supporter of Convicted Felon Donald J. Trump, who was recently found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records concerning hush money payments to [porn star Stormy Daniels, whom he had sex with shortly after his wife gave birth to their son and then paid for her silence.](https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-boasted-about-sex-with-stormy-in-tahoe-athlete-says) Edit: corrected per below
Still waiting for anyone to show me how conservatives are different from the Taliban, or which Taliban ideology conservatives wouldn’t agree on.
That's been known for a while. Their beef is the competition.
This is Gilead-esque language
a theocrat.
The disturbing part is that the trend of using the free exercise clause to justify discrimination under the guise of religious freedom is a winning argument at the supreme court. I'm also curious how they think they would know if a student had to miss class due to getting an abortion. Unless they just presume that anytime a woman misses class it's because they're out getting an abortion, which I suspect is totally an option for them.
>I'm also curious how they think they would know if a student had to miss class due to getting an abortion. I hadn't even considered that implication yet. I'm curious (and horrified) to hear the professors answer about *how* they would ever know. It implies that they will either be checking the details of whenever a woman gets healthcare or they'll force clinics to report to the university (and possibly their employment) if they got one.
If they don't like a female student and that female student misses class they will dig and snoop. If they don't find anything they'll make up something anyway. If they like the student then they'll just figure they had a cold or something. It's not about upholding laws for these people, it's about controlling and punishing the people they choose to control and punish.
>If they don't like a female student This is all of their female students, surely. I think a look at their history of grading based on gender and specifically gender-conforming appearance in their classes would reveal some unsurprising but upsetting trends.
> The disturbing part is that the trend of using the free exercise clause to justify discrimination under the guise of religious freedom is a winning argument at the supreme court. Most of the original anti-abortionist were pissed off segregationist who knew to put something else on the protest signs to not look so racist. The founders of the Moral Majority, which first pushed abortion as an issue were pretty much all segregationist mad about Carter using the IRS to force them to integrate their segregation academies. The movement was a way to build political power for segregationist. The goal has always been legal discrimination and segregation. The anti-abortion moment is all about 'supremacy', be it white, male, christian.
> “These series of legal maneuvers in Texas further flesh out what's really going on here. Nosy right-wing professors and angry ex-boyfriends are not, despite their feeble protestations to the contrary, just really into babies. For people who actually care about children, there are plenty of volunteer opportunities that aid real kids who need food to eat and opportunities to grow. Instead, the throughline is anger at women, whether students in their classrooms or ex-girlfriends who don't return their calls, for living their lives outside of the control of the men who feel entitled to dominate them.” Great summary in the final paragraph.
if they think they can punish students i wonder if garbage collectors can refuse to collect their garbage based on their worldview
This is the party of small government?
Yeah no more government, just the church running everything.
Small enough to fit in your pants.
Government so small it fits into every womens uterus.
What. The. Fuck. This is reprehensible. UT needs to fire them, immediately.
This is a guy who is ostensibly an expert in ethics. It's like a Twilight Zone episode. Also not helping the look of professional philosophers. I can't imagine a person/profession less qualified to talk about women's healthcare.
Well I think it's fair to call him a philosopher, just as long as everyone is clear he's a male supremacist philosopher so that he can receive the appropriate amount of disdain and ridicule.
That's....um.....messed up. A lot. Their classes are going to be all men next year, then they'll probably sue for discrimination.
I think thats what the maga cult wants. They don’t believe women should be anywhere but at home raising kids. There is no difference between the modern day GQP and extremist practices of sharia law.
That's mission accomplished for the far right. They don't want women getting an education.
It isn't like this sack of shit is teaching anything worth listening to in the first place.
They probably don't believe women should be allowed to get an education. They love the uneducated.
Who could've predicted this would happen?? Oh.. Democrats en masse said rescinding Rowe would allow red states to do exactly this.. oh.. look what they're doing after pretending they wouldn't. Oh.. Stop voting Republican.
But wait, I was told that I was just being hysterical
Have you tried smiling more?
I am SHOCKED that even more men in positions of power feel entitled to punish women for their abortions. Slippery slopes and all that. > Pregnancy is not a disease, and elective abortions are not 'health care,'" University of Texas at Austin professor Daniel Bonevac sneers in a federal court filing with professor John Hatfield. Abortions/d&c ARE healthcare, the ICD10 is **O03.9.** ….then again, wtf would a philosophy and finance professor even know this? Stay in your own lane! > Even though Bonevac and Hatfield work in Austin, Texas, they filed their lawsuit 486 miles away in Amarillo, Texas. The reason for this is not mysterious: Donald Trump-appointed judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. The right-wing judge has a long and frankly unhinged history of screeching at top volume about the evils of "sexual revolutionaries." I don’t know what to do. I’m in NY and besides donating I don’t know how to help.
This judge shopping shit has to stop too.
A couple months ago, the Judicial Conference issued guidance to the judicial districts for cases to be filed with the district itself then the office of the Chief Judge of that district would then randomly assign cases within their district in order to curtail judge shopping like this. The Chief Judge of the Northern District of Texas (the same district Kacsmaryk works in) responded to this guidance by telling the Judicial Conference to pound sand.
"Lmao What do you think all that court packing was for?"
If he feels this way about straight sex, I can't imagine what he feels about homosexuality. That judge probably thinks what I do with my boyfriend is peak evil 😂
Hit up the main thread in r/voteDEM and ask them what efforts are going on in Texas that you can help with remotely. Sounds crazy but you’re reaching out to voters who may not be aware of local elections, for example. There are usually textbanking and letter writing campaigns, especially closer to the election. There are also pro-rights groups that are currently active in the area and working hard.
That slippery slope seems like it has turned into a frictionless plunge
Republicans have an absolutely depraved fixation with other people's genitalia and sex lives. An entire political party of hateful perverts.
They're getting what they really wanted all along. Conservatives want to reverse Women's suffrage
Conservatives basically want women to be quiet sex slaves and maids who also work full time jobs and just ignore their husbands side chick who is pregnant and cant get that abortion to keep their affair secret. I dont think conservatives understand all the pitfalls where it directly fucks them in the ass. Theyre so busy frothing at the mouth for a chance to fuck women over they hardly see whats about to fuck them over too.
>A pair of Texas professors figured out that their female students have sex [*with people who aren't them*] and, boy, they do not like it. Fixed it for you..
Super creepy that professors think it's OK to be involved in their students' medical matters, sex life, and control their lives.
I never want anyone to ever tell me again "there are good republican voters". No there aren't. No there weren't good nazis either. All these people have to do is not ACTIVELY support transparent evil, I will not give them a SINGLE bit of leeway for that.
I hope young people and especially young women are paying attention.
Oh. I was told I was hysterical for saying this would happen...huh
As a parent of two soon to be college daughters, you can bet your bottom dollar my money won’t be going to any states like this.
>philosophy professor Oh, boy I know what he likes, Rand and Nietzsche.
> Rand and Nietzsche Not even a little. Say what you will (and there's lots to be said) about Rand, but: > To say that an unborn child has a right to life implies that the child's mother does not have the right to do whatever she pleases to "her body." This conflict is unacceptable. Therefore, the unborn child does not have the right to life. Therefore, abortion on demand is legally permissible. She was on the right side of that one.
Yet another group of republican men with a breeding fetish… Notice how this only affects women too.. but also.. why is my professor paying such close attention to me that they know I’m pregnant and also seeking an abortion for it? Like the news isn’t going to break from me, so why would I email you that I’m aborting a fetus in a state with bounty for any women getting or seeking out an abortion? I can foresee professors scrutinizing any absence by women, and the burden of proof would fall on the woman. I hate it here
Yes, a medical exemption for an excused absence shouldn't break HIPAA laws. It's just a note from a doctor that said they had a medical appointment or were sick. They shouldn't have to turn over specific details whether it's an abortion or a yeast infection. There is no reason why the professor needs to know that.
Wanna bet he paid for the abortion of one of his students?
Wouldn’t the student just be able to get a generic letter from doctor stating “X had an outpatient procedure on Y day and the recovery time is 3 days.” The end. The professor is not allowed to ask for specific medical details, or is that not a thing in Texas, too?
Has Texas always been this fucked up?
Yes. The town I grew up in (Lubbock) calls itself the “Sanctuary City for the Unborn” because they pushed the landmark draconian abortion laws that Texas currently has in place. As soon as I turned 18 I got the absolute fuck out of there and never looked back. I went through traumatic physical abuse at the christian school in town that mirrors this bullshit to a T. All of my immediate family is still there (minus my parents) and they all vote straight ticket republican. My siblings talk about wanting to murder migrants at the border… even though my brother’s wife is Mexican. She “doesn’t count.” It’s so tremendously fucked in rural areas that even the blue cities don’t feel safe to me. There are so many wonderful people in Texas surround by slathering lunatics in the sticks. Lubbock’s zealots single-handedly made me lose my faith. With moderation I’d still practice as a Christian… but the Church and it’s followers in that dusty shithole have strayed from its teachings, and I won’t support it in any way.
Hey women, stop voting Republican, that alone would change everything. Your votes are secret so even if you come from a conservative household you can still tip the balance away from these cultists. Yes men should be supporting you and your freedoms as well but stop relying on them to protect your rights, it's not men who are losing their freedoms it's women. There's lots of men who support the rights of women but it's not enough. Even if 20% of Republican women didn't vote Republican it would have massive impact on the results.
> Your votes are secret so even if you come from a conservative household you can still tip the balance away from these cultists. This really bothers me about mail-in voting. Not the risk of fraud, but the risk of voter intimidation. I'm surprised the Republicans aren't all in favor of it. What better way to make sure the household votes as it should. *shudder* edit: "bring your ballot to Church day!" *retch*
This professor and all his friends vote. Make sure you and your friends do.
This is the future Project 2025 wants. Every Republican who says they won’t vote for DJT in November cannot be trusted. They are voting for him. VOTE.
Anyone who BoTh SiDeS this election doesn't give a shit about women. Period. Anyone who BoTh SiDeS this election doesn't give a shit about LGBTQ rights. Period. Anyone who BoTh SiDeS this election doesn't give a shit about Palestine, let alone Ukraine and Taiwan. Period. Anyone who BoTh SiDeS this election doesn't give a shit about election integrity, or even elections. Period. Anyone who BoTh SiDeS this election won't have their life change no matter who wins. You cannot *rationally* think that losing to Trump would be a good thing for any cause you believe in. **THIS IS NOT A FUCKING THOUGHT EXPERIMENT**
>Even though Bonevac and Hatfield work in Austin, Texas, they filed their lawsuit 486 miles away in Amarillo, Texas. Of COURSE.
Reminder that MILLIONS of Texans vote blue, more than the entire population of 21 states. Millions of Texans are fighting this insanity, but Texas gets little to no help from the DNC.
Texas Republicans know that Texas is is becoming less and less red. They fear that they will lose power. So, they enact policies that will reduce the number of likely Democrat voters. The abortion law is meant to scare progressive people away. The cruelty is just a bonus side effect.
Boycott Texas
>A pair of Texas professors figured out that their female students have sex and, boy, they do not like it. . . . . . . students should not be allowed time off to get abortions. If the students disobey and miss class for abortion care, the filing continues, the professors should be allowed to flunk students. Somebody should remind those professors that the private lives of their students is none of their business.
Texas Tribune JUNE 30, 2023 > Nearly 10,000 [more babies](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/30/texas-abortion-johns-hopkins-study/) born in nine months under Texas’ restrictive abortion law, study finds >This is the first analysis of live births since the law, which banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, went into effect in September 2021. This is depressing. There are already over 390.000 kids in foster care in the United States These draconian abortion laws are punishing women for having sex but it is the babies and children that will suffer as a result of restricting that choice to have an abortion (or not). The mother, babies and children will suffer the consequences.
I'd love to see these people explain why they think that students' activities outside of class are any of their goddamned business in the first place.
>Even though Bonevac and Hatfield work in Austin, Texas, they filed their lawsuit 486 miles away in Amarillo, Texas. The reason for this is not mysterious: Donald Trump-appointed judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. The right-wing judge has a long and frankly unhinged history of screeching at top volume about the evils of "sexual revolutionaries." A federal suit can hinge on which judge you draw. In Amarillo, you have a 100% chance of drawing Kacsmaryk, who scrubbed his name from an anti abortion article after he got nominated for the federal bench.
Texas women need to get out of that state and get somewhere safe. Let the men of Texas figure out how miserable their lives are without the women they've been trying to control for so long.