There can be no heartbeat without a heart, which takes another 6-8 + weeks to form chambers, and 16 or more more weeks to develop valves and functional muscle tissue and actually pump blood. There is no heartbeat at 6, 8, or even 10 weeks by any definition, there's a twitch in the place a heart will one day develop.

This abdication of the state's duty to private citizens has been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court when states allowed churches to veto liquor licenses and bars challenged them and won. The government cannot deputize the populace to enforce a law, nor can it pay them with the state imposed fines even if they call it a judgement...You cannot pre set a judgement amount in a law for a civil case.

There has been no medical breakthroughs that change the standard, if it can't survive outside the womb, it's not viable. Period. End of discussion. That's what not viable means.

"Mutually incompatible"!? Nonsense. Legally there is no baby to be harmed, that's the law this is trying to end run around. Covid harms everyone. It's a paper tiger argument, a total fake red herring, there is NO public health danger if a woman has an abortion, you cannot catch abortion. Covid you can catch, and spread, and it's deadly to actual, real, fully cooked legal people AND embryos.

One wonders if the Texas legal system has nothing to do and had this passed as job security...because it's the only kind of civil case they'll be hearing now.

One also wonders if the state has too much money, because there's apparently they weren't smart enough to include exemptions for the state if they help facilitate any abortions by, let's say, offering bus service, maintaining roadways, or supplying electricity and water to the buildings. Any of these is grounds to sue them for $10000. If you live in Texas, file your case now before there's no money left and they rewrite the law to just target liberals.

They'll have to defend every case filed costing another $10000+ in legal fees (they'll have to pay the plaintiff's costs too). Pair that with the companies fleeing the state to avoid boycotts, Texas is going to be so poor they become America's Hati soon. Yee haw!

Massachusetts VS Grendle's Den - 459 US 116- 1982
A case in Massachusetts where the state deferred to the church in issuing liquor licenses, allowing them to veto any licenses they wished for their own reasons.
The supreme court voted 8-1 in favor of Grendle, stating clearly that it's extremely unconstitutional to allow a non governing body to apply the law based on their personal beliefs...and a blatant violation of the separation between church and state. This case is from 1982.
This means precedent is set, and the Texas law will be tossed....unless the new court ignores precedent and the constitution, which thanks to Trumpists is a possibility.

Texas still has "blue laws" restricting the sale of not just alcohol but other non necessities on Sundays. Enacted in 1961 and largely repealed in the 80's, you still cannot buy liquor at a store on Sundays, and car dealerships must close one weekend day. This was their way of forcing the Southern Baptist religious beliefs of the ruling class on everyone.

Edit: I grew up there in the 70’s when you could only buy food or medicine on Sundays, and some groceries and pharmacies closed.

Texas has a LONG history of legislating religious "morality", from it's inception through today. They love to talk about their freedoms, but you really only have the freedom to follow their narrow definition of morality. These morality laws always effect the poor far more than the wealthy, often completely exempting the well off....for example, you can buy an expensive mixed drink to go from a bar, restaurant, or hotel...they even have drive through bars...on Sunday morning in Texas, but you cannot buy a cheap bottle in a liquor store to pour your own. This is typical.

The Freak Out is from the Democrats spreading fake covid fear and demanding you get the shot or else be punished in some for or fashion.

Get it or don't get it it is YOUR choice.

Wasting tax dollars to know on doors is foolish.
Put a stand up at liquor store / grocery stores.

1 oz peach schnapps
Float 1 oz Bailey's on top
With an eyedropper, drop 4-6 drops of grenadine carefully together, forming a brain between the liquors
When the brain "hemorrhages" to the bottom of the glass, drink...

This is a peaches and cream brain hemorrhage....tasty desert shot.

Supply still isn't, it's accessibility. Much of the black market dissolved, leaving dispensaries as many people's only source. It's sounding like they'll stay open....for now. Business is booming with everyone home on forced vacation...liquor sales too.

I actually had this happen to me after I got a ticket. A $250 + $150 court fee ticket because I was going...wait for it...35 mph.

I got pulled over at this exact location, go on and try to find a speed limit sign going north. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6110353,-87.508833,3a,75y,12.09h,82.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxVT9eHxtCpzbkw2Q6wPCaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I remember because he whipped out from that liquor store parking lot, but long story short he wrote me a ticket and I didn't notice until later that the ticket said I got pulled over at Calumet and Lyons (right in front of the school down the road). It may be the case that the whole area is actually 25, but to be fair I was driving at 10 p.m. on my way home, whole fucking street empty.

Red n Blues as I approach the railroad tracks. I look at my speedometer "Is he pulling me over? I'm only going 35. Hmmm. Okay."

"Sir, do you have any idea how fast you were going?"
Sheepishly - "Thirty? Five?"
"THATS RIGHT!"

License - Reg, and he walks off, I look at it and say "Jesus christ! $250 for going 35?"

I find out about the court fees adding another $150 and then I see that he wrote the wrong street down "Hmmm what's this street he wrote ohhhHHHH right in front of the school where it's obviously 25 not near the railroad tracks eh? What a fucker"

I go to complain and the chief of police comes out and wants to know why I want to complain. He explains that it will go on the guys record and I should really just pay it because it could end up being a lot more trouble for me than it's worth. Strong insinuation in his voice, I left and didn't pay, didn't file complaint, went to court and explained.

Nothing happened to him, he didn't even get asked why he wrote the wrong street. It was just assumed that he was being honest.

Yeah, people don't write songs calling for "fuck the firemen" or "fuck the EMT's" - gee, I wonder why.

Gotta love him for that. He's the guy you'd want to copy test answers from in school if you didn't pay attention in class or didn't do your homework.

You know, because you were busy doing "important" things like smoking cigarettes and drinking liquor.

Just as incorrect as always, at least you're consistent.

1) All those things aren't rights, voting is. To remove a constitutional right should take more that a racist whim or the lack of a document. That should end your argument right there, but rationality and understanding my country's constitution isn't your strong suit.

2) buying smokes or liquor....not if you're over 25 or know a place.

3) getting a job....nope, only to get non cash job or benefits

4) getting a gun....not if it's a private sale

5)renting a house....nope, not true at all

6)getting married....not common law or religious marriage

7) I doubt you have an honest clue what's required to receive public assistance, but it's not a driver's license

Poor people don't do much of the rest of what you mention, they use cash, don't own a car, and don't travel.

These false excuses for violating the constitution and placing targeted obstacles in the path of mostly minorities to keep them from voting are brought to you by the anti voting rights party, Republicans, every election since voter protection was lifted and they could legally go after minorities voting rights again.
Odd, they weren't an issue before the court removed the coverage formula, making it nigh impossible to enforce voting rights.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

...the reason being, had the right implied this was their plan, or even a concern of theirs, the supreme court would have ruled that the protections are still needed and not removed said "coverage formula", which would bar most states from enacting any voting requirements, as they had historically proven and been ruled to be blatantly racially motivated.

Since that decision, republican led legislatures have tried everything but reinstating literacy tests to disenfranchise minorities. Voter id laws and voter purges based on minor clerical errors (errors made by the same people who then decide the error makes the registration invalid, errors that happen 3/4 of the time to minorities in areas with less than 30% minority populations, while whites in the same areas are 1/4 the errors caught, but almost 3/4 the population) these purely Republican sponsored laws are blatantly targeting minorities because Republicans don't represent minorities so don't expect their votes.

This comment is by far, your best composition yet, Bob. Looks great. Nice and neat.

As far as content and facts are concerned, newtboy will grade you on that.

EDIT:

It made me laugh that you listed, "Buying Smokes and Liquor" first under the heading "You need an ID for nearly anything important."

Good one! LOL!

To imply that not having a ID to vote racist is BS.

Everyone of age has an ID.


You need an ID for nearly anything important.
Buying
Smokes,
Liquor,
Airplane tickets

Getting a job
Getting a Gun
To drive
To get a passport
Buying groceries and paying with a check.
Buying some forms of medicine

Opening a bank account
Apply for food stamps
Apply for welfare
Apply for Medicaid/Social Security
Apply for unemployment
Rent/buy a house
Drive/buy/rent a car
Get married


This false argument is brought up by Democrats every election.

Mostly the trouble depends on where you work and how publicly you make your statement. I'd mostly get called a racist, but working for a partially publicly funded place if I was vocal enough losing your job or being told to apologise and be quiet are real possibilities.

The not allowed to talk about it applies much more heavily to anyone in the media. A recent example would be an aboriginal man that was recently shot by a white farmer. The narrative on the national CBC media made a big deal about rampant racism in the region against aboriginals. In their coverage of local opinion it was even more one sided, as they described two sides, the grieving family of the deceased and their supporters, and then the racists who sided with the farmer because they hated aboriginal people. They very slowly, reluctantly and buried deep under a lot of disclaimers released more information on the case.

The young man that was killed was in a truck with 4 of his friends, and their story was that they got a flat tire and pulled into the yard to seek help with repairs. The CBC ran that much right away. They were much more reluctant to include that the RCMP had been called BEFORE the truck got onto that farm because they had been trying to steal a truck from a neighbouring farm already beforehand. It wasn't until during the trial that even more came out, and CBC again reluctantly included details from the friends that where with the victim. All the occupants of the vehicle had been drinking very heavily all afternoon. They admitted to 'checking cars' at the earlier neighbouring farm. They admitted to using the butt end of a rifle to try and break the windows of the truck at the neighbouring farm, but the stock broke off the gun. It was found at the neighbouring farm by police. Upon arriving at the final farm, they admitted trying to start up an ATV and going through and unlocked vehicle there as well, but disagreed on who was doing which. The trial even included text messages from the night before wondering if one of the friends would be able to "go on missions" tomorrow because they were hiding from police after a liquor store robbery. The farmer also mentioned being scared about what could happen the day of the shooting because he thought back to a story he'd been told about 2 farmers being killed on their yards a few years before he'd moved into the area. Only 1 media outlet in the country, and in 1 article checked out that the identity of one of those killers back then turned out to be the victims uncle. I had to go back looking for the original article from when those murders took place to be sure that the current news article wasn't just sensationalising things.

Now of course none of that means you want to see somebody getting killed over property theft. None of that means racism in any way shape or form is justified. However, when there was a rampant run of rural crime across the area and farmers were getting more and more fed up and nervous about their safety something bad was eventually going to happen. It's a tragedy, but our media was absolutely terrified of covering the full story because listing the facts I just laid out is considered racist. Your blaming the victim. My listing of the above facts is not supposed to be done without including many times more explanations and reasons that this was the white man's fault.

Ultimately, the absolute failure to talk openly about things in Canada is getting people killed. We absolutely need to be clear that stealing doesn't deserve a death penalty. We ALSO need to tell a group of young adults that were going farm to farm, with a loaded rifle, raging drunk, stealing and breaking into vehicles that doing that was a BAD idea and one of the reasons is that doing so might get you shot by someone that doesn't know if your going to hurt them or not. I really believe if the kids had been white that would have been the narrative, but because of race it wasn't. It just makes things worse and inspires more risky and dangerous decisions from people in the future and more people will continue to get hurt.

Because ONLY IN RUSSIA are there troop transports to be stolen on every liquor corner.