Harris M. made a great comment about the problem of non-electric cars parking in the spots reserved for EVs at that Jewel - the one I shop at most often. Agree - the rule should be enforced, with towing as well as a ticket as needed, to keep these spaces available for EVs which are being charged. It's very much like the CTA's rules of conduct on buses and 'L' trains: posted, but rarely enforced. That's expanded on more in the current issue of the News-Star and its sister papers on the north side.
I am in the solar biz myself, and would love to own an electric car:; that being said, why can't the electric car operator charge their car at home? As an efficient hybrid operator, I am responsible for keeping the vehicle "gassed up"....I think the ice vehicle operator might be protesting the special carve out for the electric vehicle operator...if the situation was at Costco, where gas pumps are available, then this protest would be unnecessary.....
That's right. I'm in a multi-building co-op; we've been looking into the EV charging station issue, but haven't reached the point where we can think about decisions.
The other day I was walking through an alley in Evanston. I saw a car parked in a driveway with a cord sticking out of it ... and going under the garage door. I realized the outlet was inside the garage. But this was a single-family home.
As you mentioned, there are some grocery stores with associated gas stations. Being a dog in the manger is not an acceptable way of "protest." This Jewel is too small to even think about a gas station.
I am a rule follower, even when I think they are dumb rules (I think we covered that on another thread). But I also think that the businesses that have the chargers should have put them in the least desirable parking spots, to discourage misuse. Putting them near the main entrance guarantees an enforcement problem, particularly if the spots are frequently vacant. I have also heard a related complaint about people that leave their electric vehicle in the charging station for an excessive amount of time. Some places in Europe have fines for staying beyond full charge.
Totally agree with you, Marc, on putting them at the end of the line and not the beginning. I BELIEVE the reason is economic -- it costs lots more to do that.
The Ninth Amendment protects a woman's INALIENABLE right to control her own life and body that includes the right to end a pregnancy without any state interference until the fetus itself becomes a being when its brain develops the capacity to support mind. Until then the fetus is a mere object and so has no capacity for rights and cannot be used to infringe on women's rights.
That Alito states "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision" proves that he is not competent to sit on the court as are those who agree with him. The Ninth Amendment is explicit about protecting unenumerated rights, those with "no reference":
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Liberals let this happen because they are too lazy to vote Republicans out of office. too lazy to stand up to conservatives and their bullshit beliefs. Conservatism is opposed to liberalism by default and definition and so conservatives cannot live in a liberal society because liberalism is based on the concept of individual rights that rejects inherited privilege that conservatives believe in, as expressed by Alito's leaked opinion.
I think that abortion should be legal, and there should be more of them, not fewer, but this is a load of blustery b.s. There are all sorts of other laws that impinge upon a person’s governance over their own bodies, but it seems that abortion is the only one that manages to work people like you into a dither. If you’re so concerned about government overreach in this area, then why aren’t you crowing about laws that prohibit drug use or suicide? Are those not prime examples of the state odiously prying into a person’s personal choices about what they do with their bodies? Quit getting so excited about things just because your favorite political and media hacks tell you to, and get excited on principle instead. Your invocation of words like “inherited privilege” shows that your more interested in uttering hot button buzzwords than making a serious argument.
LOL! What about the fact that the right to abortion is an inalienable right don't you understand? Conservatives by definition do not accept the concept of individual, inalienable rights, which is THE problem. Got it?
" If you’re so concerned about government overreach in this area, then why aren’t you crowing about laws that prohibit drug use or suicide?"
We do. End the "war on drugs" and provide counceling to help alleviate suffering. However, you cannot prevent suicide if the person really does not not to live, even with the best counceling and support.
"Your invocation of words like “inherited privilege” shows that your more interested in uttering hot button buzzwords than making a serious argument."
LOL! Conservatism exists as opposed to liberalism. At the French Revolution liberals created the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen) that claimed in Article 1: "Human Beings are born and remain free and equal in rights." Conservatives opposed this as they supported the established hierarchy and the inherited privileges of one's class.
This is simply a fact, that conservatism opposes liberalism and so as liberalism claims that all have equal rights conservatism opposes that claim as it holds that rights are derived from one's class therefore there are no equal rights.
You don't understand Roe, its progeny, and the Dobbs draft at all. Nor do you understand the differences between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatives, for example, do not believe in inherited privilege. Please provide me with a contrary cite if you insist on maintaining your bullshit opinion.
You assertion in your first sentence is utterly untrue and shamefully so. Typical blathering from the left.
The internal threat is one posed by liberals who like to invent constitutional rights because they are unable to get the legislatures to advance their agenda.
The U.S. Constitution does not enshrine the so-called Declaration of the Rights of Man. It is therefore entirely irrelevant to the argument.
Burke makes has of the liberal argument of inherent rights. Well done, Edmund.
Conservatives are classical liberals, and liberals are illiberal.
"You assertion in your first sentence is utterly untrue and shamefully so"
From Alioto's leaked opinion:
"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision"
Show me where the constitution explicitly identifies any woman's rights. According to conservative thought (https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/06/edmund-burke-rights-inherited-owen-edwards.html), rights are inherited, not inherent and therefore women have few if any, especially because one never knows if they may be pregnant, they must always be under men's control.
"The internal threat is one posed by liberals who like to invent constitutional rights because they are unable to get the legislatures to advance their agenda."
The Ninth Amendment protects all unenumerated rights, which are not invented, but simply exist such as the inalienable right of women to abortion, the right of gay people to be treated equally under the law as straight people, etc. Conservatives deny all unenumerated rights.
"The U.S. Constitution does not enshrine the so-called Declaration of the Rights of Man. It is therefore entirely irrelevant to the argument."
The US constitution, a travesty though it was due to allowing slavery, is liberalism writ large, but for that conservative hypocrisy. The Declaration is relevant as it specifically outline what conservatives deny, inherent rights. Conservatives accept only inherited rights and therefore argue privilege at the discretion of the powerful.
"Burke makes has of the liberal argument of inherent rights. Well done, Edmund."
Burke argues for inherited rights, from the article:
"Burke’s central claim—expressed in his speeches on the American colonies, and in his demolition of the French Revolution—is that rights in a civil sense are not inherent but inherited."
Wally Cox usually played a milquetoast kind of guy, but I remember being surprised by an episode of "Mission: Impossible" he was in. The guy was ripped!
Eric! The tweet above from Mark Joseph Stern (which you essentially retweet) is not correct. Alito doesn't call same sex marriage or intercourse "phony" rights. He says "those rights" are different than the right to an abortion. I DEPLORE the decision but no one can read it and assume that Alito believes that same sex marriage or intercourse are phony rights.
One thing about this leak: it permanently and hopelessly disgraces the Roberts court. Lack of security, and leaking a decision on arguably the most important decision in any of our lives, proves once and for all that SCOTUS is every bit as political as the most odious "conservatives" in Congress, starting with the weasel McConnell and the furrowed brow of Collins, and all the way down to Gym Jordan and and Marjorie Traitor Qreene.
No right-thinking American will ever again trust that SCOTUS decisions are made based on law and the Constitution and everyone now knows that decisions are based entirely on personal ideology of SC justices, nothing else.
That's just another permanent stain on our nation's institutions, perpetrated by modern "conservatives" and those who vote for them.
“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed,” Roberts said.
Yeah, it already has succeeded. Roberts is a failure, and this proves it.
Hardly a surprise that a court populated by multiple credibly-accused sexual harasser men and rapists would come to this decision on the reproductive health-care decisions of American women.
That one of those credibly-accused justice's spouse was an active participant and funder of a treasonous plot to overthrow the government and install a fascist dictator is also not a terribly big surprise.
Wendy, the Court undermined its integrity when it made up out of whole cloth a constitutional "right" to abortion that did not exist prior to Roe. THAT case was a political action. Read the dissents by White and Rhenquist.
You don't think liberals aren't just as political? You're dreaming. There's quite a bit of speculation (no, no proof yet) that one of Sotomayer's clerks, who IS political, leaked it to burn the place down. And trying to rally the troops, so to speak, to achieve a verdict that includes more justices, has long been something justices do (see, Warren Court). If a clerk -- or a justice, for that matter, chooses to disgrace him or herself in this way how was someone going to prevent that? Would you be saying this if it were a left-leaning court and gosh darn! the leaked opinion went your way? As the saying goes, the sausage-making has been revealed. Hope the leaker is found and humiliated forever. I find a terrible thing to have had happen.
Another thing, John N., calling Jim Jordan "Gym Jordan" and rephrasing the other politician's name says way more about you. Eric used to chastise such behavior! "weasel McConnell" is just fine -- merely expressing an opinion.
"Gym Jordan" is a dig at the fact that his main professional accomplishment prior to running for office was being a wrestling coach. Hardly a sick burn. As for the leaker, don't kid yourself -- he or she, if detected, will be not be "humiliated forever," but lionized and hired by a left-leaning law firm, maybe promoted for judge by a left leaning administration at some point. Look at the unqualified numb-nuts Trump appointed to the bench because they kissed the hem of his garment. And if this decision is the right one, then what's the big hissy over it leaking out early? If "the troops" are a ragtag minority, who cares if they're rallied. I think we know the answer, Beth, don't we?
Ha! I had no idea Jim Jordan used to be a wrestling coach! I wonder if he knew Denny Hastert, who used to be, unfortunately, my rep. Way too big an age difference. Having a hissy fit over the leak because it shouldn't happen. Period. Plus, it's a draft. Who knows what behind-the-scenes stuff would have gone on that modified this? Am I surprised by the draft? Not at all. Well ... I take that back. I really expected modifications to Roe -- and I'd be in favor of limiting the time frame after which a woman can't have an abortion. But not denying them. By the way, just read something with a conservative indicating he does not believe this will bring out the Dem vote enough to matter. Not sure I agree.
You didn't know he was a wrestling coach? LOL he also provided cover for a fellow coach who sexually assaulted minors, and multiple of his students have come forward to publicly accuse Gym Jordan of covering up sexual assault. This is all public and common knowledge, yet republicans like you continue to elect him and his cohorts so he can serve on House committees and speak for the modern "conservative" movement.
So, way to go on that Beth.
And who said anything about libs not being political? Do try to keep up, won't you?
It is republicans who cheerfully politicized the Supreme Court, tho. Not liberals, not democrats.
Republicans did that. Fascists republicans who tried to overthrow the government for the benefit of Donald Effin' Trump.
How proud that must make you, Beth, and your fellow republican voters.
Well, as Jim Jordan is in Ohio and I am not ... not even moderately ashamed of not knowing anything about him other than he's always talking ab out something and my very liberal children hate him. If I'm looking for reprehensible wrestling coaches I don't have far to go (see -- Denny Hastert, my former rep). Liberals also cheerfully politicize the Supreme Court and all other branches of government. And don't presume to know anything about me -- you seem to be stuck in the past year or so, as opposed to ... oh, the past 20, 25 years.
Your false accusations of "whataboutism" ring hollow Beth. You think it was democrats and not Mitch McConnell who refused to even hold a hearing on Garland's nomination? (Pro tip: that was more than a year ago.)
You think it was democrats who said already that if there is another vacancy on SCOTUS and republicans hold the Senate, they simply won't allow President Biden to fill that vacancy? (Pro tip: that was also more than a year ago.)
Was it a democrat who said "hold me to my words, a republican president won't be allowed to fill a vacancy in an election year" and then voted to approve Handmaid Coney Barrett three weeks before election day, or was it republican Lindsey Graham? (Pro tip: that was more than a year ago.)
It isn't democrats who have, and continue to, politicize this hopelessly tainted SCOTUS. It is republicans.
At least be honest, if you can't be well-informed like the rest of the commenters here, won't you?
It is yet another sad day on the erosion of our institutions and in their ability to operate effectively. I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct about the leaker. Their betrayal of the institution, their role, and their colleagues will be gleefully overlooked, by any group that can get some mileage and has no need to actually trust the person. The leaker may claim they were overcome by their emotions, but I see no reason to believe that sorry excuse. So, the leaker wanted to create a political furor that might influence the court, which will appear to be the case if the draft is changed in any way. And/or the leaker was seeking personal advantage for their next career move. Reprehensible behavior from a person that abdicated their very significant responsibility and put their personal desires first. Yet more proof that there are few, if any, people in government that you can trust any further than you can throw them.
The leaker should have his/her bar license revoked. Please identify those judge who kissed the hem of Trump's garments, as opposed to those who kissed Biden's and Obama's. Oh, and "hi!", Eric!
Why would you assume the leaker is liberal? There may be a conservative advantage to let this severe version out to prepare the public for a very restrictive, but not total ban of Roe.
Hi Wendy! You are very correct. You have to put your head in different machinations to figure out who might have done it. All kinds of scenarios! I've read a couple of them ... so far I'm still leaning on the liberal side of the aisle. But there are several scenarios that make equal sense -- no doubt about it. And I'm just too damn tired to think right now.
Interesting. Since we have to assume that the leaker had access to any draft, they obviously had a reason for leaking the first draft. If the court issues a more moderate opinion, then it will be argued that protests and public opinion forced the change. And since the edits are not released, we won't know who offered the moderation, so Alito's language will stick to all of the majority judges. But if one of the majority judges was on the fence, this might make it harder for them to change their vote, due to the appearance of bowing to political pressure. The leaker obviously anticipated the furor and must have considered the impacts. I can imagine how both sides might see that as a positive, but it seems more energizing to the left to me. Also, more distracting from everything else that is going on. We will have to wait for the leaker to come out to sign the fat contract to be a commentator.
Does SCOTUSblog have a clue? It's worried about trust among the justices when SCOTUS just lost the trust of the majority of the American people?! A leaked opinion is the gravest sin, when SCOTUS just set back women's rights 50 years?!
Roe sent back constitutional rights 180 years by ignoring the text of the Constitution. The illegitimacy of this doctrine rests on the illegitimacy of Roe. Read the text of Roe and the dissents sometime..
As I have said before, I favor abortion rights and the primary requirement is that the Federal Congress must pass a law that defines when a pre-natal entity becomes a legal person and then prohibits any state law that infringes in any way on the medical decisions of a birthing person prior to that time. In the near term, this can also be demanded from the state legislatures. This also means that asking for a 'pro-choice' commitment from a candidate is not sufficient. We must also ask what specific legislation they will sponsor/co-sponsor/write/vote for/sign. The problem with past federal pro-choice legislators and executives is that in the last 50 years they have never done their jobs and passed the necessary legislation. Illinois law needs to be clarified because it still relies on an ambiguous 'viability' definition. Expending 'energy' on other political offices or demonstrations or programs is a distraction and a waste of time.
Here's my take on this, not based on enough facts, but on some: Many native speakers of American English, at all educational levels, say "gonna" often in our oral speech, when it's informal. We'll say "going to" when we're delivering a more formal presentation orally, like a speech. But if we learned the fully-spelled-out version "going to," then we'll use that when using the written or keyboarded word. I think I would write "gonna" in my own voice, if I wanted to say something in a sort of "character" where "gonna" works better. If we're being a reporter, or otherwise providing a direct quote from someone else, if that other person said "gonna" then our transcript will say "gonna" even in written form. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
A "packaged statement" as you refer to, is usually given in writing, right? Therefore, people who frequently utter "gonna" with their voices, will nearly always write "going to" in a packaged statement.
re: books and audio books and profit: publishers long ago decided that libraries buy many copies of the same book and that alone gives them a profit. And, people who use libraries tend to also buy books. Same with audio books: libraries pay more to get the audio book when it comes out and some audio book publishers do't let libraries have the new audio book for a time after it is published. If they did't make profit, they wouldn't be in business.
I am also curious about the demographics of people that use the library and also the numbers compared to on-line options. My guess is that there are fewer and older people, in the library with young kids. As you day, the library buys a lot of books that their clientele would not buy on their own.
A few thoughts on the nigh passing of our old friend Roe v. Wade, and one about the Evanston-Skokie gender stuff.
1. Certainly not a surprise. One of the main reasons -- perhaps the main reason -- we have had a robust conservative judicial movement and philosophy over these past 50 years or so is because conservatives were outraged by Roe and dreamed of one day undoing it. That day is about to come. Roberts showed himself to be a pragmatist, so I doubted he would pull the trigger, but I didn't feel nearly as confident about the more recently appointed conservatives when it came to Roe. For them, along with Alito and Thomas, this is the fulfillment of a dream.
2. The logic of the decision could be used to undo other constitutional rights, such as gay rights, but those can be more straightforwardly defended than abortion rights on equal protection grounds, and I doubt that Gorsuch at least would vote to undo those protections (after having found that federal sex discrimination law applies to gay and trans discrimination as well). I do not foresee states banning contraception.
3. It is today, thankfully, easier to terminate a pregnancy than it was in 1973, and many large states were pretty much "abortion deserts" before this decision anyway. It will require domestic travel for in-patient abortion services, but abortions will continue to be widely available in the United States, thank goodness.
4. I disagree with Bernie Sanders that Congress should race to codify Roe v. Wade and undo the filibuster to do so. (Won't happen anyway.) I'm not sure it would be constitutional, and federalism is now our friend. We don't want to assert a federal statutory power over abortion rights that trumps state prerogatives, because when the shoe's on the other foot, that same power could be used to justify a federal ban. (Yes, I continue to believe that a measure of principled consistency should guide political positions -- naive, I know, but an instinct I actually think independent-minded voters appreciate and one that is good for all of us to cultivate.)
5. Congress should, however, move to prohibit any punishment of people who travel out of their red state to receive a legal abortion in a blue one or, I think, any interference with abortion pills delivered through the mail -- interstate activity well within Congress's power.
6. I, like Eric, am not holding my breath for this to galvanize Democrats at the polls, though that would be nice.
7. I'm guessing/fearing that the leak was not by a conservative, as at least one comment here suggests, but by a progressive clerk meant to gin up pro-Roe outrage, which will be very unfortunate if found to be true.
8. I agree with the holding in Roe. To me, the liberty imposition of an anti-abortion law (forcing a woman, having become pregnant, and perhaps not through happy or even consensual circumstances, to bear a child and thus assume tremendous legal and ethical responsibilities, not to mention a nine-month substantial physical burden and measure of health risk) is vast and easily outweighs the state's interest in expressing its moral disapproval, especially early in the pregnancy, when the personhood of the embryo/fetus is at its least plausible and the liberty interest is most acute (she at least needs time to discover she's pregnant and make a decision). While Alito is right that we do not have a long pre-Roe history of recognizing an abortion right, this history is largely informed by a body of law that did not take women's liberty seriously generally speaking.
9. At the same time, I recognize that there are non-crazy, non-bigoted, non-hateful arguments against Roe, especially as a matter of constitutional reasoning. Roe was a stretch. Even RBG herself once mused that, essentially, it wasn't worth the backlash. And the precedent argument is lame. As the conservatives have pointed out, many of our greatest Supreme Court decisions overruled long-standing precedent, Brown v. Board most prominently among them. Which is to say, this is not a crazy, nutso decision, and, for our own sanity if for nothing else, we might check our feelings that the sky is falling as a result.
Regarding that Evanston-Skokie gender curriculum, it's really nuts, and the failure of the mainstream, non-conservative media to get into it, as far as I can tell, is illustrative. My googling yielded lots of links about it to Fox News, the New York Post, the Manhattan Institute, and other such conservative outlets looking to make hay, but not a mainstream outlet that dealt with it seriously (other than than the Picayune Sentinel). This piece by a Daily Northwestern reporter -- my old job -- came the closest, but notice how it doesn't get into the actual cuckoo content at all, leaving an ordinary reader with the impression that opposition to it could only amount to backward bigotry.
I very much don't deny that trans identities are real and that gender dysphoria is real and that people, especially kids, should be supported. I bristle, however, at a sort of trans ideology that is homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant, anti-scientific, and heedless in the context of children. "Homophobic" because it says that gender non-conformity equals trans where it may well equal gay. "Misogynistic" because it conflates sex with stereotypical gender roles. Girl = girly. If you're supposedly a girl but don't feel girly, sounds like you're really a boy. This is retrograde nonsense. "Intolerant" because adherents brook no dissent and label dissenters on highly contestable, complex issues as mere bigots. "Anti-scientific," because it denies the existence of sex. Enough with this "assigned at birth" stuff, like it's flipping a coin. Sexing people is not very hard. There are ambiguous cases, but they are a slim minority. And "heedless" in that it embraces life-changing decisions before children can possibly make informed decisions about them. One reads that Evanston-Skokie shit, and one wants to pass a law like Florida's, if better worded. Once again, progressives are handing reactionaries victory on a plate.
A gender reveal party is a “sex assigned at birth” party ? You should have called that one out for being just plain wrong. Those parties take place BEFORE birth. Sex is not “ assigned” ( which sounds like a random guess) but either determined based on observed genitalia in utero or ….increasingly commonly …on scientific testing of chromosomes. Trans people don’t just have a gender identity at odds with their “ assigned” sex . In 99.999 percent of cases they have a gender identity at odds with their sex based chromosomes. While there are some possible chromosomal abnormalities are at play in some cases, only those without a Y chromosome will be born with clearly female anatomy . ( this doesn’t mean every single solitary human without a Y chromosome has this). But chromosomal sex is so linked to sex based anatomy in such an incredibly high number of cases that any variation must be considered an Anomaly.
While there are only two sexes (male and female), gender (man, woman) is no longer synonymous. Gender is now a self-perception that can be either, neither, both, or alternating. So it is possible for any gender that is also female to bear children. I think 'mother' still means female parent, but it also has a lot of traditional gender/role baggage, so Sunday should probably be 'Birthing Person's Day' or maybe we could just have a 'Parent's Day' which would be the most inclusive and amenable to personal definition.
I prefer to keep an open comment tab open as I read to capture initial thoughts. Hell no. Pritzker's Tweet seems like a typical political 'sound byte." Politico seems to have made a conclusion. RvW hasn't been struck down - they only have an initial draft in a long process of SCOTUS legal debating. I want to know who leaked this more than anything. Maybe it was to rally the troops - but a lot can happen between now and Nov. Will this one "issue" really create any wave? Elections are about who fills "My" checklist the best.
I was actually surprised that Pritzker was not more direct in taking credit for the pro-choice legislation that was passed last year, that made Illinois the most permissive state.
You mentioned books in libraries and used bookstores. Sharing magazines and newspapers are another example. These are all examples of the 'first sale' doctrine. The copywrite holder does not need to be notified (or paid) if the original purchased copy is loaned or shared. But it does not allow the production of a new copy. All digital sharing involves the reproduction of the original, which is the publication of a new copy, which requires the authorization of the copywrite holder and must be compensated. Other aspects include: you can't possess and loan a book simultaneously; and a physical copy degrades with time and is less valuable where digital copies are identical to the original and do not change in value due to use.
Visual tweet very funny again, as usual. I felt sorry for the guy that was so traumatized by the goose that he forgot how to use punctuation in his warning sign.
I count 4 uses of the word "women" in your well-written piece. That's 4 more than WaPo used in their poorly written pro-choice, anti-ruling editorial today.
Harris M. made a great comment about the problem of non-electric cars parking in the spots reserved for EVs at that Jewel - the one I shop at most often. Agree - the rule should be enforced, with towing as well as a ticket as needed, to keep these spaces available for EVs which are being charged. It's very much like the CTA's rules of conduct on buses and 'L' trains: posted, but rarely enforced. That's expanded on more in the current issue of the News-Star and its sister papers on the north side.
I am in the solar biz myself, and would love to own an electric car:; that being said, why can't the electric car operator charge their car at home? As an efficient hybrid operator, I am responsible for keeping the vehicle "gassed up"....I think the ice vehicle operator might be protesting the special carve out for the electric vehicle operator...if the situation was at Costco, where gas pumps are available, then this protest would be unnecessary.....
A lot of people live in apartment buildings, have to park on the street, and cannot charge their car at home.
Good point. I wonder how many people in that situation would buy an electric car. I think I would opt for a hybrid.
That's right. I'm in a multi-building co-op; we've been looking into the EV charging station issue, but haven't reached the point where we can think about decisions.
The other day I was walking through an alley in Evanston. I saw a car parked in a driveway with a cord sticking out of it ... and going under the garage door. I realized the outlet was inside the garage. But this was a single-family home.
As you mentioned, there are some grocery stores with associated gas stations. Being a dog in the manger is not an acceptable way of "protest." This Jewel is too small to even think about a gas station.
I am a rule follower, even when I think they are dumb rules (I think we covered that on another thread). But I also think that the businesses that have the chargers should have put them in the least desirable parking spots, to discourage misuse. Putting them near the main entrance guarantees an enforcement problem, particularly if the spots are frequently vacant. I have also heard a related complaint about people that leave their electric vehicle in the charging station for an excessive amount of time. Some places in Europe have fines for staying beyond full charge.
Totally agree with you, Marc, on putting them at the end of the line and not the beginning. I BELIEVE the reason is economic -- it costs lots more to do that.
See https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/abortion-draft-supreme-court-opinion-key-passages-00029470 for all of the reasons that conservatives have no place on courts, they do NOT believe in rights, they believe only in privilege at the discretion of the powerful, and so have no interest in protecting them, which is the Supreme Court's primary function.
The Ninth Amendment protects a woman's INALIENABLE right to control her own life and body that includes the right to end a pregnancy without any state interference until the fetus itself becomes a being when its brain develops the capacity to support mind. Until then the fetus is a mere object and so has no capacity for rights and cannot be used to infringe on women's rights.
That Alito states "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision" proves that he is not competent to sit on the court as are those who agree with him. The Ninth Amendment is explicit about protecting unenumerated rights, those with "no reference":
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Liberals let this happen because they are too lazy to vote Republicans out of office. too lazy to stand up to conservatives and their bullshit beliefs. Conservatism is opposed to liberalism by default and definition and so conservatives cannot live in a liberal society because liberalism is based on the concept of individual rights that rejects inherited privilege that conservatives believe in, as expressed by Alito's leaked opinion.
I think that abortion should be legal, and there should be more of them, not fewer, but this is a load of blustery b.s. There are all sorts of other laws that impinge upon a person’s governance over their own bodies, but it seems that abortion is the only one that manages to work people like you into a dither. If you’re so concerned about government overreach in this area, then why aren’t you crowing about laws that prohibit drug use or suicide? Are those not prime examples of the state odiously prying into a person’s personal choices about what they do with their bodies? Quit getting so excited about things just because your favorite political and media hacks tell you to, and get excited on principle instead. Your invocation of words like “inherited privilege” shows that your more interested in uttering hot button buzzwords than making a serious argument.
"but this is a load of blustery b.s"
LOL! What about the fact that the right to abortion is an inalienable right don't you understand? Conservatives by definition do not accept the concept of individual, inalienable rights, which is THE problem. Got it?
" If you’re so concerned about government overreach in this area, then why aren’t you crowing about laws that prohibit drug use or suicide?"
We do. End the "war on drugs" and provide counceling to help alleviate suffering. However, you cannot prevent suicide if the person really does not not to live, even with the best counceling and support.
"Your invocation of words like “inherited privilege” shows that your more interested in uttering hot button buzzwords than making a serious argument."
LOL! Conservatism exists as opposed to liberalism. At the French Revolution liberals created the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen) that claimed in Article 1: "Human Beings are born and remain free and equal in rights." Conservatives opposed this as they supported the established hierarchy and the inherited privileges of one's class.
This is simply a fact, that conservatism opposes liberalism and so as liberalism claims that all have equal rights conservatism opposes that claim as it holds that rights are derived from one's class therefore there are no equal rights.
You don't understand Roe, its progeny, and the Dobbs draft at all. Nor do you understand the differences between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatives, for example, do not believe in inherited privilege. Please provide me with a contrary cite if you insist on maintaining your bullshit opinion.
I fully understand Roe and that conservatives deny that women have any rights whatsoever, that they must be controlled.
Conservatives are illiberal by definition, they opposed liberals' Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen), such as Article 1. Edmund Burke argued against the very concept of inherent rights argued by liberals:
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/06/edmund-burke-rights-inherited-owen-edwards.html
Conservatives are THE internal threat and have no business being in power.
You assertion in your first sentence is utterly untrue and shamefully so. Typical blathering from the left.
The internal threat is one posed by liberals who like to invent constitutional rights because they are unable to get the legislatures to advance their agenda.
The U.S. Constitution does not enshrine the so-called Declaration of the Rights of Man. It is therefore entirely irrelevant to the argument.
Burke makes has of the liberal argument of inherent rights. Well done, Edmund.
Conservatives are classical liberals, and liberals are illiberal.
"You assertion in your first sentence is utterly untrue and shamefully so"
From Alioto's leaked opinion:
"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision"
Show me where the constitution explicitly identifies any woman's rights. According to conservative thought (https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/06/edmund-burke-rights-inherited-owen-edwards.html), rights are inherited, not inherent and therefore women have few if any, especially because one never knows if they may be pregnant, they must always be under men's control.
"The internal threat is one posed by liberals who like to invent constitutional rights because they are unable to get the legislatures to advance their agenda."
The Ninth Amendment protects all unenumerated rights, which are not invented, but simply exist such as the inalienable right of women to abortion, the right of gay people to be treated equally under the law as straight people, etc. Conservatives deny all unenumerated rights.
"The U.S. Constitution does not enshrine the so-called Declaration of the Rights of Man. It is therefore entirely irrelevant to the argument."
The US constitution, a travesty though it was due to allowing slavery, is liberalism writ large, but for that conservative hypocrisy. The Declaration is relevant as it specifically outline what conservatives deny, inherent rights. Conservatives accept only inherited rights and therefore argue privilege at the discretion of the powerful.
"Burke makes has of the liberal argument of inherent rights. Well done, Edmund."
Burke argues for inherited rights, from the article:
"Burke’s central claim—expressed in his speeches on the American colonies, and in his demolition of the French Revolution—is that rights in a civil sense are not inherent but inherited."
"Conservatives are classical liberals, and liberals are illiberal."
Conservatives are illiberal by definition.
s/b hash, hot has. Oh, and your first sentence is a vicious falsehood. And I refuse to argue further with the terminally uninformed.
LOL! You'll have to stop talking to yourself!
Wally Cox usually played a milquetoast kind of guy, but I remember being surprised by an episode of "Mission: Impossible" he was in. The guy was ripped!
Eric! The tweet above from Mark Joseph Stern (which you essentially retweet) is not correct. Alito doesn't call same sex marriage or intercourse "phony" rights. He says "those rights" are different than the right to an abortion. I DEPLORE the decision but no one can read it and assume that Alito believes that same sex marriage or intercourse are phony rights.
One thing about this leak: it permanently and hopelessly disgraces the Roberts court. Lack of security, and leaking a decision on arguably the most important decision in any of our lives, proves once and for all that SCOTUS is every bit as political as the most odious "conservatives" in Congress, starting with the weasel McConnell and the furrowed brow of Collins, and all the way down to Gym Jordan and and Marjorie Traitor Qreene.
No right-thinking American will ever again trust that SCOTUS decisions are made based on law and the Constitution and everyone now knows that decisions are based entirely on personal ideology of SC justices, nothing else.
That's just another permanent stain on our nation's institutions, perpetrated by modern "conservatives" and those who vote for them.
And right on cue:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/03/supreme-court-leak-investigation-abortion-roe-wade/
“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed,” Roberts said.
Yeah, it already has succeeded. Roberts is a failure, and this proves it.
The Court undermined its integrity with the betrayal of the Constitution by far right justices. The leak merely exposed their political action.
Hardly a surprise that a court populated by multiple credibly-accused sexual harasser men and rapists would come to this decision on the reproductive health-care decisions of American women.
That one of those credibly-accused justice's spouse was an active participant and funder of a treasonous plot to overthrow the government and install a fascist dictator is also not a terribly big surprise.
Wendy, the Court undermined its integrity when it made up out of whole cloth a constitutional "right" to abortion that did not exist prior to Roe. THAT case was a political action. Read the dissents by White and Rhenquist.
You don't think liberals aren't just as political? You're dreaming. There's quite a bit of speculation (no, no proof yet) that one of Sotomayer's clerks, who IS political, leaked it to burn the place down. And trying to rally the troops, so to speak, to achieve a verdict that includes more justices, has long been something justices do (see, Warren Court). If a clerk -- or a justice, for that matter, chooses to disgrace him or herself in this way how was someone going to prevent that? Would you be saying this if it were a left-leaning court and gosh darn! the leaked opinion went your way? As the saying goes, the sausage-making has been revealed. Hope the leaker is found and humiliated forever. I find a terrible thing to have had happen.
Another thing, John N., calling Jim Jordan "Gym Jordan" and rephrasing the other politician's name says way more about you. Eric used to chastise such behavior! "weasel McConnell" is just fine -- merely expressing an opinion.
"Gym Jordan" is a dig at the fact that his main professional accomplishment prior to running for office was being a wrestling coach. Hardly a sick burn. As for the leaker, don't kid yourself -- he or she, if detected, will be not be "humiliated forever," but lionized and hired by a left-leaning law firm, maybe promoted for judge by a left leaning administration at some point. Look at the unqualified numb-nuts Trump appointed to the bench because they kissed the hem of his garment. And if this decision is the right one, then what's the big hissy over it leaking out early? If "the troops" are a ragtag minority, who cares if they're rallied. I think we know the answer, Beth, don't we?
Ha! I had no idea Jim Jordan used to be a wrestling coach! I wonder if he knew Denny Hastert, who used to be, unfortunately, my rep. Way too big an age difference. Having a hissy fit over the leak because it shouldn't happen. Period. Plus, it's a draft. Who knows what behind-the-scenes stuff would have gone on that modified this? Am I surprised by the draft? Not at all. Well ... I take that back. I really expected modifications to Roe -- and I'd be in favor of limiting the time frame after which a woman can't have an abortion. But not denying them. By the way, just read something with a conservative indicating he does not believe this will bring out the Dem vote enough to matter. Not sure I agree.
You didn't know he was a wrestling coach? LOL he also provided cover for a fellow coach who sexually assaulted minors, and multiple of his students have come forward to publicly accuse Gym Jordan of covering up sexual assault. This is all public and common knowledge, yet republicans like you continue to elect him and his cohorts so he can serve on House committees and speak for the modern "conservative" movement.
So, way to go on that Beth.
And who said anything about libs not being political? Do try to keep up, won't you?
It is republicans who cheerfully politicized the Supreme Court, tho. Not liberals, not democrats.
Republicans did that. Fascists republicans who tried to overthrow the government for the benefit of Donald Effin' Trump.
How proud that must make you, Beth, and your fellow republican voters.
Well, as Jim Jordan is in Ohio and I am not ... not even moderately ashamed of not knowing anything about him other than he's always talking ab out something and my very liberal children hate him. If I'm looking for reprehensible wrestling coaches I don't have far to go (see -- Denny Hastert, my former rep). Liberals also cheerfully politicize the Supreme Court and all other branches of government. And don't presume to know anything about me -- you seem to be stuck in the past year or so, as opposed to ... oh, the past 20, 25 years.
Your false accusations of "whataboutism" ring hollow Beth. You think it was democrats and not Mitch McConnell who refused to even hold a hearing on Garland's nomination? (Pro tip: that was more than a year ago.)
You think it was democrats who said already that if there is another vacancy on SCOTUS and republicans hold the Senate, they simply won't allow President Biden to fill that vacancy? (Pro tip: that was also more than a year ago.)
Was it a democrat who said "hold me to my words, a republican president won't be allowed to fill a vacancy in an election year" and then voted to approve Handmaid Coney Barrett three weeks before election day, or was it republican Lindsey Graham? (Pro tip: that was more than a year ago.)
It isn't democrats who have, and continue to, politicize this hopelessly tainted SCOTUS. It is republicans.
At least be honest, if you can't be well-informed like the rest of the commenters here, won't you?
It is yet another sad day on the erosion of our institutions and in their ability to operate effectively. I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct about the leaker. Their betrayal of the institution, their role, and their colleagues will be gleefully overlooked, by any group that can get some mileage and has no need to actually trust the person. The leaker may claim they were overcome by their emotions, but I see no reason to believe that sorry excuse. So, the leaker wanted to create a political furor that might influence the court, which will appear to be the case if the draft is changed in any way. And/or the leaker was seeking personal advantage for their next career move. Reprehensible behavior from a person that abdicated their very significant responsibility and put their personal desires first. Yet more proof that there are few, if any, people in government that you can trust any further than you can throw them.
The leaker should have his/her bar license revoked. Please identify those judge who kissed the hem of Trump's garments, as opposed to those who kissed Biden's and Obama's. Oh, and "hi!", Eric!
Why would you assume the leaker is liberal? There may be a conservative advantage to let this severe version out to prepare the public for a very restrictive, but not total ban of Roe.
Hi Wendy! You are very correct. You have to put your head in different machinations to figure out who might have done it. All kinds of scenarios! I've read a couple of them ... so far I'm still leaning on the liberal side of the aisle. But there are several scenarios that make equal sense -- no doubt about it. And I'm just too damn tired to think right now.
Interesting. Since we have to assume that the leaker had access to any draft, they obviously had a reason for leaking the first draft. If the court issues a more moderate opinion, then it will be argued that protests and public opinion forced the change. And since the edits are not released, we won't know who offered the moderation, so Alito's language will stick to all of the majority judges. But if one of the majority judges was on the fence, this might make it harder for them to change their vote, due to the appearance of bowing to political pressure. The leaker obviously anticipated the furor and must have considered the impacts. I can imagine how both sides might see that as a positive, but it seems more energizing to the left to me. Also, more distracting from everything else that is going on. We will have to wait for the leaker to come out to sign the fat contract to be a commentator.
Does SCOTUSblog have a clue? It's worried about trust among the justices when SCOTUS just lost the trust of the majority of the American people?! A leaked opinion is the gravest sin, when SCOTUS just set back women's rights 50 years?!
Roe sent back constitutional rights 180 years by ignoring the text of the Constitution. The illegitimacy of this doctrine rests on the illegitimacy of Roe. Read the text of Roe and the dissents sometime..
As I have said before, I favor abortion rights and the primary requirement is that the Federal Congress must pass a law that defines when a pre-natal entity becomes a legal person and then prohibits any state law that infringes in any way on the medical decisions of a birthing person prior to that time. In the near term, this can also be demanded from the state legislatures. This also means that asking for a 'pro-choice' commitment from a candidate is not sufficient. We must also ask what specific legislation they will sponsor/co-sponsor/write/vote for/sign. The problem with past federal pro-choice legislators and executives is that in the last 50 years they have never done their jobs and passed the necessary legislation. Illinois law needs to be clarified because it still relies on an ambiguous 'viability' definition. Expending 'energy' on other political offices or demonstrations or programs is a distraction and a waste of time.
This is way off topics, but a picayune point regarding the Sun-Times.
Fran Spielman consistently quotes Lightfoot as using the word "gonna" meaning "going to." Every single story! (see example, first URL below)
But when quoting from someone else's packaged statement, "going to" is used (see second URL) I guess because the original is not verbalized.
But not in the Sun-Times style guide, as evidenced by the use of "going to" in an article by Lynn Sweet and Tina Sfondeles.
There's a lot of bad news these days, and my peeve is very pet; I feel bad about posting, but apparently not bad enough.
"we’re gonna work our tails off"
https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2022/5/2/23054290/lightfoot-whole-foods-closing-englewood-prices-replacement-store-emanuel
"Somebody is going to get killed down there"
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/5/2/23053815/lower-wacker-street-racing-ring-of-fire-police-crackdown-demanded-reilly-city-council-dowell
"So ultimately, we’re going to give them a menu of options and proposals"
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/5/3/23054453/exclusive-details-on-chicagos-bid-for-2024-democratic-convention
Here's my take on this, not based on enough facts, but on some: Many native speakers of American English, at all educational levels, say "gonna" often in our oral speech, when it's informal. We'll say "going to" when we're delivering a more formal presentation orally, like a speech. But if we learned the fully-spelled-out version "going to," then we'll use that when using the written or keyboarded word. I think I would write "gonna" in my own voice, if I wanted to say something in a sort of "character" where "gonna" works better. If we're being a reporter, or otherwise providing a direct quote from someone else, if that other person said "gonna" then our transcript will say "gonna" even in written form. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
A "packaged statement" as you refer to, is usually given in writing, right? Therefore, people who frequently utter "gonna" with their voices, will nearly always write "going to" in a packaged statement.
re: books and audio books and profit: publishers long ago decided that libraries buy many copies of the same book and that alone gives them a profit. And, people who use libraries tend to also buy books. Same with audio books: libraries pay more to get the audio book when it comes out and some audio book publishers do't let libraries have the new audio book for a time after it is published. If they did't make profit, they wouldn't be in business.
I am also curious about the demographics of people that use the library and also the numbers compared to on-line options. My guess is that there are fewer and older people, in the library with young kids. As you day, the library buys a lot of books that their clientele would not buy on their own.
A few thoughts on the nigh passing of our old friend Roe v. Wade, and one about the Evanston-Skokie gender stuff.
1. Certainly not a surprise. One of the main reasons -- perhaps the main reason -- we have had a robust conservative judicial movement and philosophy over these past 50 years or so is because conservatives were outraged by Roe and dreamed of one day undoing it. That day is about to come. Roberts showed himself to be a pragmatist, so I doubted he would pull the trigger, but I didn't feel nearly as confident about the more recently appointed conservatives when it came to Roe. For them, along with Alito and Thomas, this is the fulfillment of a dream.
2. The logic of the decision could be used to undo other constitutional rights, such as gay rights, but those can be more straightforwardly defended than abortion rights on equal protection grounds, and I doubt that Gorsuch at least would vote to undo those protections (after having found that federal sex discrimination law applies to gay and trans discrimination as well). I do not foresee states banning contraception.
3. It is today, thankfully, easier to terminate a pregnancy than it was in 1973, and many large states were pretty much "abortion deserts" before this decision anyway. It will require domestic travel for in-patient abortion services, but abortions will continue to be widely available in the United States, thank goodness.
4. I disagree with Bernie Sanders that Congress should race to codify Roe v. Wade and undo the filibuster to do so. (Won't happen anyway.) I'm not sure it would be constitutional, and federalism is now our friend. We don't want to assert a federal statutory power over abortion rights that trumps state prerogatives, because when the shoe's on the other foot, that same power could be used to justify a federal ban. (Yes, I continue to believe that a measure of principled consistency should guide political positions -- naive, I know, but an instinct I actually think independent-minded voters appreciate and one that is good for all of us to cultivate.)
5. Congress should, however, move to prohibit any punishment of people who travel out of their red state to receive a legal abortion in a blue one or, I think, any interference with abortion pills delivered through the mail -- interstate activity well within Congress's power.
6. I, like Eric, am not holding my breath for this to galvanize Democrats at the polls, though that would be nice.
7. I'm guessing/fearing that the leak was not by a conservative, as at least one comment here suggests, but by a progressive clerk meant to gin up pro-Roe outrage, which will be very unfortunate if found to be true.
8. I agree with the holding in Roe. To me, the liberty imposition of an anti-abortion law (forcing a woman, having become pregnant, and perhaps not through happy or even consensual circumstances, to bear a child and thus assume tremendous legal and ethical responsibilities, not to mention a nine-month substantial physical burden and measure of health risk) is vast and easily outweighs the state's interest in expressing its moral disapproval, especially early in the pregnancy, when the personhood of the embryo/fetus is at its least plausible and the liberty interest is most acute (she at least needs time to discover she's pregnant and make a decision). While Alito is right that we do not have a long pre-Roe history of recognizing an abortion right, this history is largely informed by a body of law that did not take women's liberty seriously generally speaking.
9. At the same time, I recognize that there are non-crazy, non-bigoted, non-hateful arguments against Roe, especially as a matter of constitutional reasoning. Roe was a stretch. Even RBG herself once mused that, essentially, it wasn't worth the backlash. And the precedent argument is lame. As the conservatives have pointed out, many of our greatest Supreme Court decisions overruled long-standing precedent, Brown v. Board most prominently among them. Which is to say, this is not a crazy, nutso decision, and, for our own sanity if for nothing else, we might check our feelings that the sky is falling as a result.
Regarding that Evanston-Skokie gender curriculum, it's really nuts, and the failure of the mainstream, non-conservative media to get into it, as far as I can tell, is illustrative. My googling yielded lots of links about it to Fox News, the New York Post, the Manhattan Institute, and other such conservative outlets looking to make hay, but not a mainstream outlet that dealt with it seriously (other than than the Picayune Sentinel). This piece by a Daily Northwestern reporter -- my old job -- came the closest, but notice how it doesn't get into the actual cuckoo content at all, leaving an ordinary reader with the impression that opposition to it could only amount to backward bigotry.
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2020/05/12/city/teacher-calls-for-lgbtq-education-equity/
I very much don't deny that trans identities are real and that gender dysphoria is real and that people, especially kids, should be supported. I bristle, however, at a sort of trans ideology that is homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant, anti-scientific, and heedless in the context of children. "Homophobic" because it says that gender non-conformity equals trans where it may well equal gay. "Misogynistic" because it conflates sex with stereotypical gender roles. Girl = girly. If you're supposedly a girl but don't feel girly, sounds like you're really a boy. This is retrograde nonsense. "Intolerant" because adherents brook no dissent and label dissenters on highly contestable, complex issues as mere bigots. "Anti-scientific," because it denies the existence of sex. Enough with this "assigned at birth" stuff, like it's flipping a coin. Sexing people is not very hard. There are ambiguous cases, but they are a slim minority. And "heedless" in that it embraces life-changing decisions before children can possibly make informed decisions about them. One reads that Evanston-Skokie shit, and one wants to pass a law like Florida's, if better worded. Once again, progressives are handing reactionaries victory on a plate.
A gender reveal party is a “sex assigned at birth” party ? You should have called that one out for being just plain wrong. Those parties take place BEFORE birth. Sex is not “ assigned” ( which sounds like a random guess) but either determined based on observed genitalia in utero or ….increasingly commonly …on scientific testing of chromosomes. Trans people don’t just have a gender identity at odds with their “ assigned” sex . In 99.999 percent of cases they have a gender identity at odds with their sex based chromosomes. While there are some possible chromosomal abnormalities are at play in some cases, only those without a Y chromosome will be born with clearly female anatomy . ( this doesn’t mean every single solitary human without a Y chromosome has this). But chromosomal sex is so linked to sex based anatomy in such an incredibly high number of cases that any variation must be considered an Anomaly.
While there are only two sexes (male and female), gender (man, woman) is no longer synonymous. Gender is now a self-perception that can be either, neither, both, or alternating. So it is possible for any gender that is also female to bear children. I think 'mother' still means female parent, but it also has a lot of traditional gender/role baggage, so Sunday should probably be 'Birthing Person's Day' or maybe we could just have a 'Parent's Day' which would be the most inclusive and amenable to personal definition.
Let me know when a Elliot Page and the like father a child. It can't happen.
I prefer to keep an open comment tab open as I read to capture initial thoughts. Hell no. Pritzker's Tweet seems like a typical political 'sound byte." Politico seems to have made a conclusion. RvW hasn't been struck down - they only have an initial draft in a long process of SCOTUS legal debating. I want to know who leaked this more than anything. Maybe it was to rally the troops - but a lot can happen between now and Nov. Will this one "issue" really create any wave? Elections are about who fills "My" checklist the best.
I was actually surprised that Pritzker was not more direct in taking credit for the pro-choice legislation that was passed last year, that made Illinois the most permissive state.
You mentioned books in libraries and used bookstores. Sharing magazines and newspapers are another example. These are all examples of the 'first sale' doctrine. The copywrite holder does not need to be notified (or paid) if the original purchased copy is loaned or shared. But it does not allow the production of a new copy. All digital sharing involves the reproduction of the original, which is the publication of a new copy, which requires the authorization of the copywrite holder and must be compensated. Other aspects include: you can't possess and loan a book simultaneously; and a physical copy degrades with time and is less valuable where digital copies are identical to the original and do not change in value due to use.
Visual tweet very funny again, as usual. I felt sorry for the guy that was so traumatized by the goose that he forgot how to use punctuation in his warning sign.
I count 4 uses of the word "women" in your well-written piece. That's 4 more than WaPo used in their poorly written pro-choice, anti-ruling editorial today.