HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ancianita » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 166 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Sarasota
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 27,180

About Me

Human. Being.

Journal Archives

Good news. New Mexico Governor signs executive order on abortion access


New Mexico stands with California in retaining abortion rights and, moreover, refraining from honoring other states' stipulations on travel or jurisdictional power over abortion. It is the most progressive state in the West.

“Amid the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and ending federal protections on the right to an abortion, New Mexico’s Governor signed an executive order Monday related to abortion access in the state. The order addresses issues several outstanding issues as they related to New Mexico’s willingness to help other states that now have different laws on the books related to abortion.

The order comes as New Mexico lawmakers consider more definitions surrounding abortion following the state’s 2021 law, repealing a 1969 abortion ban in New Mexico. The governor was joined at Monday’s press conference by lawmakers and reproductive rights advocates, including Senate Majority Whip Linda Lopez (D-Albuquerque), and representatives of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and the ACLU of New Mexico.

“We will not further imperil the rights and access points of anyone in the state of New Mexico,” Governor Lujan Grisham said. “As long as I’m Governor, everyone in the state of New Mexico will be protected, out of state residents seeking access will be protected, providers will be protected, and abortion is, and will continue to be legal, safe and accessible.”

The order can be broken down into three elements. The first surrounds assistance from New Mexico state agencies to other states. It directs all New Mexico state employees, appointees, officers or any others acting on behalf of the state to not provide assistance to any “investigation or proceeding initiated in or by another State that seeks to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanction upon a person or entity” for various choices related to reproductive health care services that are legal in New Mexico.

The second elements seeks to define protection of health care and other professionals licensed in New Mexico. It directs New Mexico’s Superintendent of Regulation and Licensing to work with boards to develop policies ensuring “no person shall be disqualified from licensure or subject to discipline by a New Mexico board of professional licensure” for providing reproductive health care services otherwise legal in New Mexico, but illegal in another state.

The third element outlines limits on interstate extradition related to states that have outlined criminal statutes related to abortion. The order states the “Office of the Governor shall decline any request received from the executive authority of any other State to issue a warrant for the arrest or surrender of any person charged with a criminals violation of a law” as they relate to legal practices surrounding reproductive health care in New Mexico.

“It means we will not cooperate for any criminalization or attempt at removing a license, or holding accountable a provider here who might be under national license or regional license [in respects to abortion],” Governor Lujan Grisham said Monday. “I will not be executing, if there were any, warrants or extradition for any provider related to this issue.”

The order comes as several nearby states have enacted trigger laws, immediately banning or curtailing abortion procedures amid the Roe v. Wade decision. In New Mexico, abortion remains legal after lawmakers repealed a 1969 law during the 2021 legislative session.”

The meaning of New Mexico's Zia symbol, derived from the Zia Pueblo (or Tsi’ya).


The founders didn't think women were people. Women
-- couldn't vote,
-- couldn't own property,
-- couldn't sit on juries,
-- couldn't hold public office
-- couldn't do anything without their husband's permission.
Girls were married off to gain social status or political favors from other families; once married, girls and women could be beaten and raped. Marital rape was on the books until 1993, in OUR LIFETIME.

And that's how the men who wrote the Constitution treated the white women they LIKED.
Black women could be raped anywhere, anytime with total impunity, the children born from white men were slaves from birth to death.

People argue that slavery was practiced throughout the world but the rest of the world didn't make slavery a condition FROM BIRTH like here. HERE, unlike elsewhere, white men didn't allow their bastard children to join the clergy or army, which was common in the rest of the world. Here bondage was passed down through every black woman that any white men impregnated.

And children? I already mentioned marrying girls off. Any children who survived infancy could be put out in the fields to work, beaten if they misbehaved. Framers of the Constitution had no care for widows and orphans.
And that's how they treated the children they LIKED.

The nutshell history of how they treated children they didn't like: their own progeny from slaves -- no more than profit centers, labor raised to market, like lambs to the slaughter. Later all white children, particularly of immigrants, were set to work in factories, apprenticed. School was for children of the rich.

NO man should dare fix his lying mouth around "the rights of the unborn" when their kind, for centuries, condemned their own progeny to rape, bondage and lifelong torment -- TO BUILD MEN'S WEALTH. TO MAKE MONEY.

The first principle that the men who wrote the Constitution missed is that WOMEN ARE PEOPLE. FULL EQUAL PEOPLE. MILLIONS OF MEN STILL DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

If you DO believe that women are people, then the right to privacy (14th Amendment & Griswold v Conn) then all the reproductive rights that flow from it are straightforward and beyond obvious.

The Comstock Act of 1873 prevented the sending of contraceptives through the MAIL.
Today that law would be resurrected for MEN as much as for women. Yet the facts on the ground show that men can at anytime obtain contraceptives wherever they want them. When any soldier can get a pack of condoms while whoring his way through this war against women, but then denies ANY wife, woman or girl birth control (bc) pills -- from 1960 on -- that right there is a point-and-click violation of the 14th Amendment and Griswold and the Comstock Act.

Men have had the right to sex-without-incubation for 5 - 7 million years. As with Griswold, or the Comstock Act, or Roe, many rights in the Constitution make no sense without the right to privacy, AND UNenumerated rights are ALSO protected by the 9th Amendment.

Yes. PRIVACY IS A THING. It has been the basis of much gun legislation, and based on the 14th Amendment. Stupid conservatives who mock the right to privacy STILL cock their guns over anyone invading their "castle," don't they.

Roe got passed because of the privacy and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.
What is left of the Roe ruling that the SCOTUS NOW refers to the states is this:
Roe emphasized a "legitimate state interest" in limiting abortions for the benefit of the health of the mother and "protecting the potentiality of human life." So that's why today's SCOTUS sent abortion decisions back to the states.


THEY HAVE DECIDED WHO STILL GETS EQUALITY OF PEOPLE UNDER THE LAW. Which helps explain why corpses have more prior bodily autonomy rights than pregnant women.

No justices have adopted ANY equal protection framework for women.
Once you start giving women equal protection of laws, the whole damn patriarchy starts to crumble. Why?
Because when the ERA is passed, ALL laws that limit women socially, legally, economically, will be NULLIFIED ACROSS 50 STATES.

Which is why to this very day, the ERA is still stalled in Congress, though already ratified by 38 states.

At the beginning of the 117th Congress, a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 17) to remove the deadline for ratification was again introduced in both chambers, with bipartisan support.[195] The House passed the resolution by a 222–204 vote on March 17, 2021.[196][197] The companion bill, S.J.Res. 1, introduced by Senator Ben Cardin, was co-sponsored by all members of the Senate Democratic Caucus and Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins.[198] This means there are fifty-two senators who back the resolution, however, no vote on the resolution has taken place by the committee or by the full Senate

The bill in the U. S. House of Representatives -- H. J. RES 17 -- will be codified as the 27th Amendment WHEN DEMOCRATS GET 54 SENATORS.

John Fetterman makes 51, Val Demings makes 52. Who else have we got on deck.

We need to get out there in 2022 to donate to them and whoever else we can get.


VoteVets Endorses Marcus Flowers -- Make MTG Bite The Dust

In a dystopian world of handmaids

be an Arya.

Lawrence O'Donnell and the Supreme Court's Rape Dad Decision

Every pregnancy is the responsibility of a man.

“…Republicans in Washington have spent decades lying about more things than they can keep track of. Remember that they lie about tax cuts for the rich, increasing revenue to the Treasury; they’ve always lied about that no matter how many times it has been proven to be a lie; and now they've gone all the way to lying about who won the presidential election.

What could ever stop them from lying about abortion, lying about what they really think about abortion. I for one believe that every Republican member of the United States Senate who favors banning all abortions is an ABJECT LIAR… there is not a single Republican member of the United States Senate who would force a daughter or a granddaughter who was raped, to have that baby … who was impregnated by her high school boyfriend, to have that baby.

They all believe in an exception for rape or incest for themselves and their families. There is no Republican senator with a 13 year-old daughter or granddaughter who would force that girl to have a child.

But they insist. They insist that any 13 year-old girl In Mississippi or Texas or many other states, who can’t afford to travel, must have a baby at age 13 because they cannot afford to travel. The Supreme Court only has the power to deny abortion services to women and girls who cannot afford to travel to a safe haven state… or when the Supreme Court decides that every fetus has the full rights of personhood, and therefore abortion is murder, in all fifty states…

And STILL no daughter or grandaughter of any Republican United States Senator will ever, now or the future, EVER be denied abortion services because of the law of this land. They will buy their way out of that for their daughters or their granddaughters…

They are all pro-choice.
There is no family decision to be made if there is no choice…

...[Bush] didn’t believe that all abortions should be banned, but he appointed a Supreme Court justice who believes exactly that, and has written a draft that will ban all abortions in many states immediately and possibly lead eventually to a Supreme Court-imposed ban on all abortions in all 50 states….”

...there is no reason to think that there aren’t more Republican members of the House and Senate who have paid for abortion services for their wives, for women they were having affairs with, for their daughters, granddaughters.

To force a raped 13-year old girl,
to force a raped 12 year-old child to have a baby,
to force a raped child to have a child.
To force her to do that is barbaric.

And every Republican senator knows that….”

Laurence Tribe: 'Will We Have A Legitimate Form Of Law' If Women Have Less Than Full Rights?

If you live in a state near abortion ban states, offer rides to those who need to "go camping."


This is IT, fellow Democrats -- how to win in the face of clear and present danger.

WHAT’S AT STAKE: democracy — it can’t save itself


WHEN: 2022

STATE PRIMARY DATES: https://www.270towin.com/2022-election-calendar/

If this link tells you it doesn’t have exact info, just type in your county & state to find your division of elections office’s map
If you’re in a battleground state — any Republic-run state — don’t choose to vote online. Choose mail in or same day poll voting.


— check your voter registration; https://www.usa.gov/confirm-voter-registration#item-214522
— check to see where your district is; https://www.democracydocket.com/news/here-are-the-maps-that-could-change-between-now-and-2024/
— find out what’s on the ballot

There are a lot of folks to vote for but don't let it overwhelm you.
-- Write up your candidate(s) under each vote category on paper.
You can do this because it won’t be hard to find your Democratic Party candidate(s) name(s)
For a primary, check multiple Democrats for their stance on abortion from https://ontheissues.org/default.htm
— Lay your category candidate choices out on paper.
— Make copies to pass out to busy/lazy friends, neighbors, strangers.
Tell them to make copies of yours and pass them along.
Along with each copy, offer them transportation to the poll site if it's not within walking distance.

WHY: SELF EVIDENT. Along with more reasons to GYAOTV:

— midterms are consistently 20% lower than general elections, with the exceptions of 2018 and 2020; be the voter of the third blue wave
— primary elections are already underway; vote in your state’s primary

The above comes from Democracy Docket, a great plan-your-vote site that uses the above posted information hyperlinks, and a lot more.

This here is how we all fucking WIN.


On a more personal note...

Good News Poll On Whether Trump Should be Charged -- A snapshot, true, but OUR snapshot.




-- 58% of Americans think Trump should be charged with a crime for his role in the riot,
up by 6% since late April; up from 54% in January;

-- 58% of Americans think Trump bears a "great deal" or a "good amount" of responsibility for the attack on the Capitol; unchanged from the same poll in December 2021; unchanged from the poll taken after the attack in January 2021.

Re party lines...

-- 91% of Democrats thinking Trump should be charged with a crime compare to 19% of Republicans

-- 62% of Independents think Trump should be charged; 61% of Independents think he bears a "great deal" or a "good amount" of responsibility.

Re the hearings...

-- 60% of Americans think the committee is conducting a fair and impartial investigation while 38% say it is not; up from a 40% even split since late April, and 20% with "no opinion" in late April

-- 34% of Americans are following the hearings very or somewhat closely

-- 43% of Democrats and 22% of Republicans are following the hearings very or somewhat closely

hearings impact at the polls in 2022:

-- 51% of Americans say that what they've read, seen or heard about the hearings has made no difference in who they plan to support

-- 29% of Americans say they are more likely to support Democratic candidates

-- 19% of Americans say they are more likely to support Republican candidates.

The Honorable Judge Michael Luttig's Testimony -- "Clear and present danger"-- Blew The Roof Off

from Wikipedia

In January 2021, it was reported that Luttig "played a key role in advising" US vice president Mike Pence on what his legal responsibilities and powers were as he presided over the electoral vote count on January 6 of that month, in the face of pressure by president Donald Trump to take steps to overturn some states' votes. Luttig "agreed to quickly write up his opinion that the vice president had no power to change the outcome, then posted it on Twitter."

Proof of seditious conspiracy came yesterday from Justice Michael Luttig, who revealed

-- that the Twelfth Amendment never allows anything but what it says ...
-- nothing about objecting to the elector count,
-- nothing about rejecting the elector count,
-- nothing about suspending the count date for ten days,
-- nothing about sending the electors back to the states;
-- these Eastman "theories" are "constitutional mischief";
-- that Trump was told and knew the law, and that
-- Vice President Pence told Dr. Luttig that Trump told him to reject the electors.

He used the legal terms, "clear and present danger."

Although sometimes mentioned in subsequent rulings, the clear and present danger test was never endorsed by the Supreme Court as a test to be used by lower courts when evaluating the constitutionality of legislation that regulated speech.

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

Not only did he testify to the Jan 6 Select Committee Chairman, he spoke to America, he spoke to nine SCOTUS justices, and to Attorney General Merrick Garland and the U.S. Department of Justice.

They, and we, ignore him at our peril.

"As you said, Chairman Thompson, that today, almost two years after that fateful day, in January, 2021 — that still Donald Trump and allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.

That’s not because of what happened on January 6. It’s because to this very day the former president, his allies and supporters, pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican Party presidential candidate were to lose that election, that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election, but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020.

I don’t speak those words lightly. I would have never spoken those words ever in my life except that that’s what the former president and his allies are telling us, as I said in that New York Times op ed wherein I was speaking about the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The former president and his allies are executing that blueprint for 2024 in open and plain view of the American public. I repeat, I would have never uttered one single one of those words unless the former president and his allies were candidly and proudly speaking those exact words to America.

Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today in these proceedings. "

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 166 Next »