Confused (although I agree with all you say) ... does leaving abortion up to the states mean that a state can make performing / receiving abortions *in that state* illegal, but would not make it a crime to travel to another state and receive an abortions? (Or is that the potential slippery slope that could happen?)
Brilliant article! You raise points I hadn’t considered, Thank you! Sadly I believe our nation will be split into Red and Blue states, a new Civil War. I don’t see how any woman can be prosecuted for traveling out of state for an abortion only if the abortion was performed in the state now declared illegal.
If people attempt prosecutions it will backfire.
I also appreciate the comments from Peter Nayland Kust. I wasn’t aware “bodily autonomy” wasn’t part of the opinion. A brilliant argument how DNA is used as proof of identity in court cases yet ignored to confer identity/personhood to a preborn.
There are two points I would make in regards to SCOTUS and abortion:
1) A close reading of Roe v Wade shows that bodily autonomy arguments were NOT part of Blackmun's opinion. In fact, Roe v Wade argues the exact opposite, that the State has compelling interests that give it license to regulate abortion.
2) There is an as-yet untested legal possibility with regards to abortion, which, if followed through, would be the demolition of the Roe v Wade arguments on Blackmun's own terms: It is established biological fact that, at the moment of conception, the genetic material from sperm and ovum unite to create a unique set of human chromosomes. The DNA profile of the unborn child is distinct from both mother and father from the moment of conception.
The legal significance of this is that, for decades, DNA profiles have been accepted by courts around the world as proof of identity--so much so that multiple state courts have upheld so-called "John Doe" arrest warrants as sufficient to get around statute-of-limitations defenses when a person is tried for sexual assault or other infamous crime years afterwards; the logic being that the DNA profile identified the defendant specifically, and the lack of a legal name was not a bar to the prosecution.
An abortion "ban" itself is, as you say, unwieldy and unenforceable. However, should SCOTUS follow the legal principles I have just outlined to their logical conclusion, they arrive at a point of acknowledging the personhood of the unborn from the moment of conception. THAT acknowledgment changes the act of abortion from clinical procedure to premeditated murder.
While pro-choice advocates argue that the fetus is NOT a person, it is my contention that, considering how the courts already view DNA evidence, a unique DNA profile is proof of legal identity and therefore proof of personhood--the lack of a legal name has already been obviated at the state court level in multiple jurisdictions. In other words, the legal elements of a final resolution to the abortion debate already exist.
Moreover, acknowledging the personhood of the unborn child moots bodily autonomy arguments and concerns, as no bodily autonomy argument can apply when there is ANOTHER body (that of the unborn child) at issue. No person's bodily autonomy could ever extend so far as to justify the intentional destruction of another human life.
Bodily autonomy concerns are indeed very relevant to all medical discussions. However, the connection between those arguments and the substance of Roe v Wade is largely mythical, a conflation arising from subsequent debates over abortion.
This is a very prudent and principled group of observations, Toby. Sadly, because of the jab causing infertility - very few will be getting pregnant ( especially offspring of jabbed parents).
That said, making abortion illegal after 8 weeks seems like the most moral and safe time frame...and a compromise everyone ( except the fetus) can live with.
You make some great arguments for why giving this power to the states would be a disaster. And I agree with your solution about what Chief Justice Roberts should do. It's sound, logical and reasonable.
However, wrt "The Alito opinion...is focused only on the question of which institution gets to decide, rather than the scientific merits of the argument itself." - It's my understanding that they're supposed to focus ONLY on the Constitutional merits. Scientific merit is out of their purview.
Interestingly enough, the whole abortion issue would be moot if everyone had access to low-cost (or even free!) contraception, and was untethered from religious dogma so they could freely use it.
I agree with you because your thoughts are realistic. I also agree that pregnancy rates are down and it wont be a huge problem in the future. I know so many young healthy women trying to get pregnant and it’s not easy in todays toxic evil world.
Wow, apparently your thoughts aren't as controversial as you were expecting. But I disagree with your analysis in significant area. You state (and others agree with you),
"My point is that vaccine mandates and bans on abortion, regardless of how one feels about vaccines or abortion, are so unwieldy in practice, that they require totalitarianism in order to enforce them"
Abortion murders an innocent person and murder cannot be legalized. Any "ruling" or "law" that "legalizes" murder of the innocent is illegitimate and must not be followed. It is blatantly unconstitutional. I believe that the constitution supports my position but SCOTUS is unwilling to recognize that the unborn are innocent persons, but they should (the science is undeniable). They are cowards. If they did, the disparate state laws permitting murder of the innocent would be unconstitutional. It is not totalitarian to enforce our constitution, it is the opposite. It provides liberty by protecting our rights from those who would take them away. I think that a baby facing abortion would welcome what you describe as totalitarian and "unwieldy." But we will not obtain this constitutional protection of unborn life with this SCOTUS ruling. I agree that having differing definitions of murder across states will create the kind of mess you describe, thanks to SCOTUS cowardice.
Your compromise of 15 weeks is as silly as it is untenable and unscientific. Try again. Also, dragging forced vaccination into the discussion is just not helpful here. While I am against this also, the bodily autonomy principle is not going to rescue the baby from an abortion. As far as it's application to the mother, once the baby is recognized as a person, there are now 2 bodies and 2 persons, both with rights. A mother's bodily autonomy does not allow her to deny her baby's right to life, even if her baby is less than 15 weeks old.
I understand you and your associates are having difficulty getting some sort of official response of any kind to your concerns of the safety signals of the Covid-19 vaccines and other issues surrounding the disease and the response to it.
Now I don’t mean to give this as legal advice, so don’t take it as such, but I’ve stumbled onto a method that you all might be able to make use of to your advantage. I’ve attached several sources below that argue and claim to explain how to make use of notices and affidavits to elicit a response to your objections and concerns.
The method might be similar to what worked with Safeway in Hawaii and DMED. They claim success with the United Auto Workers and even being instrumental in stopping the OSHA mandate.
It is particularly attractive as it would give everyone, every individual concerned with a given issue with a word processor, something to do from their house.
Their argument is that with notices sent as they outline, and if they don’t desist then sending affidavits counting as sworn testimony, that the recipient has to respond. They would have to reply point by point explaining where they have constitutional authority, or to rebut your affidavit on matters of fact, within a time limit or the notice and affidavit can be used as evidence before a court of record, and that they ‘acquiesce’ to everything in your affidavit as true if they ignore it. If they lie in their response it counts as lying under oath.
In short, the argument is that if they ignore you completely it is as good as a confession that you are right or they are breaking the law. The catch is you have to have a solid argument with the truth. They claim to have success getting institutions to relent on a number of issues by sending these; even if they don’t openly respond or acknowledge them, the problem stops. If not they are trying to gain access to the grand juries and the courts. It is a bit more involved than just the usual petition or letter however, and you all would have to pick the addressees of these notices and affidavits.
I know that these sources might not be on your end of the political spectrum, but perhaps their particular method has merit despite your differences. Please share this with anyone who may be interested or you think would benefit from it. Including The Unity Project, Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone, Alex Berenson, Jessica Rose, Mathew Crawford, Aaron Siri, and, El Gato Malo.
YouTube / Odysee / Rumble Channels
- ' Affidavit Mommas 2021 ' / anonymous on Odysse / Affidavit Mommas 2021- (This should have the most concise explanations) The original channel I was going to show you is down.
“Affidavit Mommas on the Process of how you do Notices and Affidavits”
“What you might want to know about Notices and Affidavits”
Other Website: https://affidavitmommas.com, they have prepared examples here they also have a telegram account.
- ' Dave Cares for You ' YouTube is still up, also on Odysee and Rumble
He has a lot of videos and is tied to Josh Barnett below. He seems to have been the first to figure this method out, even though he doesn’t have a formal education.
“The Hidden Secret Revealed that stops Gov Corruption [Share RAPIDLY TO FREE THE PEOPLE]Dave Jose”
I in no way support forced vaccinations, but if we are talking about societal level impacts, the number of deaths from abortion absolutely dwarfs the number of deaths we will see from forced vaccination.
Forced vaccination is forcing someone to accept an injection that affects their body physiology and functioning and affects only their body, not anyone else’s, unless they are pregnant, in which case the developing baby may also be harmed which no one wants (and ironically would be considered a tragedy). Pregnancy is a normal physiologic function, and in the vast majority of cases, is the result of a consensual decision to engage in intercourse with the potential for pregnancy being well known. One act is forced and changes a body’s hardwired physiology. The other is welcomed and results in bodily changes that are a hardwired physiologic response to implantation of a fertilized ovum.
As for equating forced vaccination with an inability to terminate a pregnancy, well this is just not equal in rational terms. Forced vaccination Is requiring someone to alter their physiology with a vaccine when no benefit to anyone else is guaranteed, only the recipient (and potentially their developing baby) is potentially harmed and their is no guaranteed end to a human life. In this case no one wants the negative impacts on any human body to occur. Outlawing abortion is forcing someone NOT to alter their natural physiology when negative impacts on a human body resulting in the death of another human life is the sole purpose of the procedure. Negative impacts on a human body is the main feature.
Why is intentionally ending a human life not murder when this is the outcome the mother desires, but the death of a baby as a result of bodily harm sustained by a mother if she is physically attacked or deprived of resources to support a pregnancy can be?
Yes, whoever thought we would be here in 2022! Why are women's rights never permanent and always contested? Why are we still fighting for basic control over our bodies?
I honestly don't know what I will do this November.. but if precedent is overturned... and Roe is overturned... there will be rioting in the streets and the GOP is going to hemorrhage women and independent voters.
I thought your article was thoughtfully written. I do disagree though that the Alito decision is a bad one.
State law is where most crimes are and should be handled. And these laws cover a variety of issues. Freedom of choice is an issue. Personal sovereignty should be protected when it doesn’t curtail someone else’s personal sovereignty. Protecting a class of people who also have bodies, and cannot fend for themselves is also an issue. States should have the autonomy to make the laws that address these issues – the Feds do not have some enlightenment that states do not. Roe v Wade was bad law -- not necessarily because of the ruling on the issue at hand, but because it usurped that autonomy granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. The ends do not justify the means.
This also applies to things like determining timeframes as well – 6 weeks, 15 weeks, etc. Ability to survive at premature birth is improving every day. States are just better able to respond to what is possible, as compared to some monolithic standard. Should a state legislature write a law that violates a right enshrined in the Constitution, then that can be appealed to a court, should things go too far. That happens all the time and is a feature of the system, not a defect.
I feel like the issue you bring up on the issue of crossing state lines is a strawman. There are already major differences in the way the states write laws for murder, robbery, burglary, arson, theft, rape etc. – not to mention the penalties involved for those can be vastly different. Is that “workable”? It might seem messy, but it also seems to be workable. I don’t know of any circumstance where states set up checkpoints because of differences in laws that might be broken (or differences in standards or punishments). Nor has there been any push for that. And even the opposite is true – for example states that have established unconstitutional gun control laws, don’t set up checkpoints on the way back in either when someone has purchased a firearm in another state. It just doesn’t happen. (We can’t even monitor/stop foreign immigrants from entering our state, much less other U.S. citizens!)
I have gone to neighboring states, and even recently flew to Las Vegas to gamble, because gambling is illegal in my state. I have never been arrested on my return to the airport or when crossing a state line for participating in that activity.
There is no evidence that any group is utilizing “period tracking apps” in order to spy on specific people who may be considering an abortion. Selling someone’s specific health data with their identifying personal information is illegal. That is different than aggregating data with non-specific information. I don’t know if the NPR writer was being intentionally obtuse, but that NPR article was an irresponsible hit piece in my opinion.
One other thing to keep in mind that most of the restrictive laws on abortion focus on punishment for person/provider performing the procedure than they are on the woman receiving the procedure. That is a different issue than bodily autonomy.
And anyway, whether the Alito opinion costs votes or not should be irrelevant. It is a decision that upholds federalism that is far more in line with the Constitution – unlike Roe v Wade.
Fantastic response and you are dead on! I am a now politically homeless democrat/liberal turned independent who is decidedly against vaccine mandates yet pro-choice--meaning I believe in medical freedom and the right for everyone to make medical choices surrounding their bodies across the board. The state has no right to intervene and forcibly inject me nor does it have a right to colonize my uterus/womb. The state needs to keep its laws off my body.
I was moving to vote red this November due to the unconstitutional vaccine mandates and after the SCOTUS opinion, I will now be forced to vote blue to protect Roe and women's reproductive freedom. This is so sad, that conservatives and GOP just can't seem to get that they were this close to winning women over and becoming the majority.. as they appeared to become advocates for medical autonomy. And now they look like tyrannical abusive monsters again which I can't support nor vote for.
Every time the medical freedom starts to take a step forward and unite everyone, the right goes and screws it up, taking 2 steps back by being on the wrong side of a polarizing debate trying to control women. So depressing.
Every word you have written here radiates with insight to the whole truth of the debate. Leaving each state with the Alioto opinion to decide on the abortion issue, may be what the powers at the top know will separate not only the states further from being a nation; but will also separate us people, while strengthening the polarity of the major issues, we have been debating for months. It seems there is a big plot to destabilize the United States of America. And with this also comes a psychotic devolved-desperation to hold the states together as one nation, brought to us in the way of false pride, an over-inflated ego (seen by others from abroad, like your Aussie friend), covered up crimes, and the erosion of our rights little by little. The caldron of falsehoods perpetrated from the top wants this separation, wants us fighting over these issues of our sovereignty. However, as the curtain becomes transparent, with brilliant writers like yourself, their desire will in the end bring us together. . . . Thus, whatever SCOTUS decides may sadly highlight the psychotic desperation of our falling nation and our conditioned ideological, moral and political differences. Never the less, it is possible those who have a strong case to have an abortion, will find a way, like we did in the 1960s and 70s, when we went to Mexico. Strict laws, unfortunately or fortunately, are great for generating a thriving black market somewhere!
Toby, I have to agree with your Australian friend. The US is well and long overdue for a split. There is no hard and fast tule that says the nation must stay together.
If we refer back to the original succession of the southern states from the union, which regardless of what we’ve been lied to about for over a century, is true and still stands, since the necessary amendment was never lawfully ratified, then we can all agree to disagree and go our own way peaceably. I don’t think it needs to come to war, though. I think we can agree to split in a mostly amicable manner based on our differences.
I say this as someone who walked away from the bread and circuses of the political machinations years ago and opted not to participate in fraud and corruption. It’s only a game played for those who haven’t yet figured out that it’s two sides of the same coin and the only ones being played are those who continue to think they have a say in what the outcome will be. I don’t wear labels and can see the points of both the old guard republicans and and old guard democrats. When I say old, I mean a hundred or so years ago. Perhaps I’m a realistic centrist libertarian. Do your thing, don’t take what isn’t your own, earn your way, and don’t harm others or their property. The end.
That being said, I think those states that opt for the blue will do significantly worse than red states. People who vote red are, by and large, hard working people who are more prone to be self reliant and skilled. We can’t say the same for those on the blue team. They tend to be made up of the overly and shamefully indoctrinated by institutions of “higher” learning, they’re the spoon fed, pacifier, safe space, participation trophy winning, hands out for free stuff, social justice warriors who depend on the media’s shifting winds of change to tell them which issue is most important next. Mostly a group made up of a bunch of whiny sissies who struggle with instructions on how to boil water and get offended at everything. Reactionary instead of introspective with nary an independent thought among them, especially todays lot. Brats is what my parents would refer to people like that as.
Their idea of creativity involves smearing shit on paper and calling it art. They claim they want to save the environment, but won’t forego all the lickies and suckies of their corporate label plastered bodies and accessories. Oh, I know that applies to both red and blue these days. If it’s not a designer brand, unless it’s out of absolute necessity, they won’t dare touch it.
I say this as someone who walked away from the bread and circuses of the political machinations years ago and opted not to participate in fraud and corruption. It’s only a game played for those who haven’t yet figured out that it’s two sides of the same coin and the only ones being played are those who continue to think they have a say in what the outcome will be. I don’t wear labels and can see the points of both the old guard republicans and and old guard democrats. When I say old, I mean a hundred or so years ago. I saw through the fraud and corruption of the entire system many years ago. Most people referred to me as a conspiracy theorist. Trust me, I’d be happier if I was wrong. So would everyone else reading this.
Perhaps I’m a realistic centrist libertarian. Do your thing, don’t take what isn’t your own, earn your way, and don’t harm others or their property. The end.
In the beginning were the States. The States realized they could benefit from a limited federal government. So the States got together and wrote up an agreement amongst themselves whereby they created a federal government, and listed its specific and limited powers. The States were careful to include in the agreement that all other powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government were reserved to the States or to the People. This agreement among the States is known to us today as the US Constitution.
The States were very wise as there are many things for which a one size fits all solution does not work well. Each State has its own constitution and its people can have more of a say in their state and local governments. The States were rightly concerned about giving too mich power to a central government.
This delegation and reservation of powers is called Federalism. Federalism is crucial for avoiding despots and tyranny. We will all do well to remember it and defend it vigorously.
Returning the decision on abortion back to the people and their state governments is the only constitutionally correct solution, it is a wise solution that does not prevent abortion in states where the people so assent, and it corrects a federal government that has developed quite a penchant for unlawfully constructing new powers for itself.
Fear can be generated from any number of hypotheticals - the hyperventilating libs are particularly good at dispensing fear. Courage, free speech, and vigorous defense of life, liberty, and property are the appropriate answers to fear. We should not let fear cause us to lose the core principles by which the Founding Fathers embarked on this experiment in government, which has produced this great nation.
Confused (although I agree with all you say) ... does leaving abortion up to the states mean that a state can make performing / receiving abortions *in that state* illegal, but would not make it a crime to travel to another state and receive an abortions? (Or is that the potential slippery slope that could happen?)
wrong... a life is a life is a life ....all life is sacred and MUST be protected from conception to natural death
Brilliant article! You raise points I hadn’t considered, Thank you! Sadly I believe our nation will be split into Red and Blue states, a new Civil War. I don’t see how any woman can be prosecuted for traveling out of state for an abortion only if the abortion was performed in the state now declared illegal.
If people attempt prosecutions it will backfire.
I also appreciate the comments from Peter Nayland Kust. I wasn’t aware “bodily autonomy” wasn’t part of the opinion. A brilliant argument how DNA is used as proof of identity in court cases yet ignored to confer identity/personhood to a preborn.
Thank you Peter!
There are two points I would make in regards to SCOTUS and abortion:
1) A close reading of Roe v Wade shows that bodily autonomy arguments were NOT part of Blackmun's opinion. In fact, Roe v Wade argues the exact opposite, that the State has compelling interests that give it license to regulate abortion.
2) There is an as-yet untested legal possibility with regards to abortion, which, if followed through, would be the demolition of the Roe v Wade arguments on Blackmun's own terms: It is established biological fact that, at the moment of conception, the genetic material from sperm and ovum unite to create a unique set of human chromosomes. The DNA profile of the unborn child is distinct from both mother and father from the moment of conception.
The legal significance of this is that, for decades, DNA profiles have been accepted by courts around the world as proof of identity--so much so that multiple state courts have upheld so-called "John Doe" arrest warrants as sufficient to get around statute-of-limitations defenses when a person is tried for sexual assault or other infamous crime years afterwards; the logic being that the DNA profile identified the defendant specifically, and the lack of a legal name was not a bar to the prosecution.
An abortion "ban" itself is, as you say, unwieldy and unenforceable. However, should SCOTUS follow the legal principles I have just outlined to their logical conclusion, they arrive at a point of acknowledging the personhood of the unborn from the moment of conception. THAT acknowledgment changes the act of abortion from clinical procedure to premeditated murder.
While pro-choice advocates argue that the fetus is NOT a person, it is my contention that, considering how the courts already view DNA evidence, a unique DNA profile is proof of legal identity and therefore proof of personhood--the lack of a legal name has already been obviated at the state court level in multiple jurisdictions. In other words, the legal elements of a final resolution to the abortion debate already exist.
Moreover, acknowledging the personhood of the unborn child moots bodily autonomy arguments and concerns, as no bodily autonomy argument can apply when there is ANOTHER body (that of the unborn child) at issue. No person's bodily autonomy could ever extend so far as to justify the intentional destruction of another human life.
Bodily autonomy concerns are indeed very relevant to all medical discussions. However, the connection between those arguments and the substance of Roe v Wade is largely mythical, a conflation arising from subsequent debates over abortion.
This is a very prudent and principled group of observations, Toby. Sadly, because of the jab causing infertility - very few will be getting pregnant ( especially offspring of jabbed parents).
That said, making abortion illegal after 8 weeks seems like the most moral and safe time frame...and a compromise everyone ( except the fetus) can live with.
You make some great arguments for why giving this power to the states would be a disaster. And I agree with your solution about what Chief Justice Roberts should do. It's sound, logical and reasonable.
However, wrt "The Alito opinion...is focused only on the question of which institution gets to decide, rather than the scientific merits of the argument itself." - It's my understanding that they're supposed to focus ONLY on the Constitutional merits. Scientific merit is out of their purview.
Interestingly enough, the whole abortion issue would be moot if everyone had access to low-cost (or even free!) contraception, and was untethered from religious dogma so they could freely use it.
I agree with you because your thoughts are realistic. I also agree that pregnancy rates are down and it wont be a huge problem in the future. I know so many young healthy women trying to get pregnant and it’s not easy in todays toxic evil world.
Wow, apparently your thoughts aren't as controversial as you were expecting. But I disagree with your analysis in significant area. You state (and others agree with you),
"My point is that vaccine mandates and bans on abortion, regardless of how one feels about vaccines or abortion, are so unwieldy in practice, that they require totalitarianism in order to enforce them"
Abortion murders an innocent person and murder cannot be legalized. Any "ruling" or "law" that "legalizes" murder of the innocent is illegitimate and must not be followed. It is blatantly unconstitutional. I believe that the constitution supports my position but SCOTUS is unwilling to recognize that the unborn are innocent persons, but they should (the science is undeniable). They are cowards. If they did, the disparate state laws permitting murder of the innocent would be unconstitutional. It is not totalitarian to enforce our constitution, it is the opposite. It provides liberty by protecting our rights from those who would take them away. I think that a baby facing abortion would welcome what you describe as totalitarian and "unwieldy." But we will not obtain this constitutional protection of unborn life with this SCOTUS ruling. I agree that having differing definitions of murder across states will create the kind of mess you describe, thanks to SCOTUS cowardice.
Your compromise of 15 weeks is as silly as it is untenable and unscientific. Try again. Also, dragging forced vaccination into the discussion is just not helpful here. While I am against this also, the bodily autonomy principle is not going to rescue the baby from an abortion. As far as it's application to the mother, once the baby is recognized as a person, there are now 2 bodies and 2 persons, both with rights. A mother's bodily autonomy does not allow her to deny her baby's right to life, even if her baby is less than 15 weeks old.
“If they ignore you, you still win”
Toby Rogers and company,
I understand you and your associates are having difficulty getting some sort of official response of any kind to your concerns of the safety signals of the Covid-19 vaccines and other issues surrounding the disease and the response to it.
Now I don’t mean to give this as legal advice, so don’t take it as such, but I’ve stumbled onto a method that you all might be able to make use of to your advantage. I’ve attached several sources below that argue and claim to explain how to make use of notices and affidavits to elicit a response to your objections and concerns.
The method might be similar to what worked with Safeway in Hawaii and DMED. They claim success with the United Auto Workers and even being instrumental in stopping the OSHA mandate.
It is particularly attractive as it would give everyone, every individual concerned with a given issue with a word processor, something to do from their house.
Their argument is that with notices sent as they outline, and if they don’t desist then sending affidavits counting as sworn testimony, that the recipient has to respond. They would have to reply point by point explaining where they have constitutional authority, or to rebut your affidavit on matters of fact, within a time limit or the notice and affidavit can be used as evidence before a court of record, and that they ‘acquiesce’ to everything in your affidavit as true if they ignore it. If they lie in their response it counts as lying under oath.
In short, the argument is that if they ignore you completely it is as good as a confession that you are right or they are breaking the law. The catch is you have to have a solid argument with the truth. They claim to have success getting institutions to relent on a number of issues by sending these; even if they don’t openly respond or acknowledge them, the problem stops. If not they are trying to gain access to the grand juries and the courts. It is a bit more involved than just the usual petition or letter however, and you all would have to pick the addressees of these notices and affidavits.
I know that these sources might not be on your end of the political spectrum, but perhaps their particular method has merit despite your differences. Please share this with anyone who may be interested or you think would benefit from it. Including The Unity Project, Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone, Alex Berenson, Jessica Rose, Mathew Crawford, Aaron Siri, and, El Gato Malo.
YouTube / Odysee / Rumble Channels
- ' Affidavit Mommas 2021 ' / anonymous on Odysse / Affidavit Mommas 2021- (This should have the most concise explanations) The original channel I was going to show you is down.
“Affidavit Mommas on the Process of how you do Notices and Affidavits”
“What you might want to know about Notices and Affidavits”
Other Website: https://affidavitmommas.com, they have prepared examples here they also have a telegram account.
- ' Dave Cares for You ' YouTube is still up, also on Odysee and Rumble
He has a lot of videos and is tied to Josh Barnett below. He seems to have been the first to figure this method out, even though he doesn’t have a formal education.
“The Hidden Secret Revealed that stops Gov Corruption [Share RAPIDLY TO FREE THE PEOPLE]Dave Jose”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WseDVwhHcc
“Big Victories versus UAW …”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY9f00DOV1g
“Federal Mandate Owned Josh Barnett and David Jose method drops affidavit in Fed case (Praise God)!!!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoiEq205dvE
Other Website: www.RestoreMYRepublic.com
- ' Josh Barnett for US Congress ' - (Yes I know, this is not an endorsement)
“How to stop mandatory V’s” now seems to only have a Odysee channel
Other Website: https://www.barnettforaz.com
I in no way support forced vaccinations, but if we are talking about societal level impacts, the number of deaths from abortion absolutely dwarfs the number of deaths we will see from forced vaccination.
Forced vaccination is forcing someone to accept an injection that affects their body physiology and functioning and affects only their body, not anyone else’s, unless they are pregnant, in which case the developing baby may also be harmed which no one wants (and ironically would be considered a tragedy). Pregnancy is a normal physiologic function, and in the vast majority of cases, is the result of a consensual decision to engage in intercourse with the potential for pregnancy being well known. One act is forced and changes a body’s hardwired physiology. The other is welcomed and results in bodily changes that are a hardwired physiologic response to implantation of a fertilized ovum.
As for equating forced vaccination with an inability to terminate a pregnancy, well this is just not equal in rational terms. Forced vaccination Is requiring someone to alter their physiology with a vaccine when no benefit to anyone else is guaranteed, only the recipient (and potentially their developing baby) is potentially harmed and their is no guaranteed end to a human life. In this case no one wants the negative impacts on any human body to occur. Outlawing abortion is forcing someone NOT to alter their natural physiology when negative impacts on a human body resulting in the death of another human life is the sole purpose of the procedure. Negative impacts on a human body is the main feature.
Why is intentionally ending a human life not murder when this is the outcome the mother desires, but the death of a baby as a result of bodily harm sustained by a mother if she is physically attacked or deprived of resources to support a pregnancy can be?
Yes, whoever thought we would be here in 2022! Why are women's rights never permanent and always contested? Why are we still fighting for basic control over our bodies?
I honestly don't know what I will do this November.. but if precedent is overturned... and Roe is overturned... there will be rioting in the streets and the GOP is going to hemorrhage women and independent voters.
I thought your article was thoughtfully written. I do disagree though that the Alito decision is a bad one.
State law is where most crimes are and should be handled. And these laws cover a variety of issues. Freedom of choice is an issue. Personal sovereignty should be protected when it doesn’t curtail someone else’s personal sovereignty. Protecting a class of people who also have bodies, and cannot fend for themselves is also an issue. States should have the autonomy to make the laws that address these issues – the Feds do not have some enlightenment that states do not. Roe v Wade was bad law -- not necessarily because of the ruling on the issue at hand, but because it usurped that autonomy granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. The ends do not justify the means.
This also applies to things like determining timeframes as well – 6 weeks, 15 weeks, etc. Ability to survive at premature birth is improving every day. States are just better able to respond to what is possible, as compared to some monolithic standard. Should a state legislature write a law that violates a right enshrined in the Constitution, then that can be appealed to a court, should things go too far. That happens all the time and is a feature of the system, not a defect.
I feel like the issue you bring up on the issue of crossing state lines is a strawman. There are already major differences in the way the states write laws for murder, robbery, burglary, arson, theft, rape etc. – not to mention the penalties involved for those can be vastly different. Is that “workable”? It might seem messy, but it also seems to be workable. I don’t know of any circumstance where states set up checkpoints because of differences in laws that might be broken (or differences in standards or punishments). Nor has there been any push for that. And even the opposite is true – for example states that have established unconstitutional gun control laws, don’t set up checkpoints on the way back in either when someone has purchased a firearm in another state. It just doesn’t happen. (We can’t even monitor/stop foreign immigrants from entering our state, much less other U.S. citizens!)
I have gone to neighboring states, and even recently flew to Las Vegas to gamble, because gambling is illegal in my state. I have never been arrested on my return to the airport or when crossing a state line for participating in that activity.
There is no evidence that any group is utilizing “period tracking apps” in order to spy on specific people who may be considering an abortion. Selling someone’s specific health data with their identifying personal information is illegal. That is different than aggregating data with non-specific information. I don’t know if the NPR writer was being intentionally obtuse, but that NPR article was an irresponsible hit piece in my opinion.
One other thing to keep in mind that most of the restrictive laws on abortion focus on punishment for person/provider performing the procedure than they are on the woman receiving the procedure. That is a different issue than bodily autonomy.
And anyway, whether the Alito opinion costs votes or not should be irrelevant. It is a decision that upholds federalism that is far more in line with the Constitution – unlike Roe v Wade.
My two cents anyway.
Thanks for your blog.
Fantastic response and you are dead on! I am a now politically homeless democrat/liberal turned independent who is decidedly against vaccine mandates yet pro-choice--meaning I believe in medical freedom and the right for everyone to make medical choices surrounding their bodies across the board. The state has no right to intervene and forcibly inject me nor does it have a right to colonize my uterus/womb. The state needs to keep its laws off my body.
I was moving to vote red this November due to the unconstitutional vaccine mandates and after the SCOTUS opinion, I will now be forced to vote blue to protect Roe and women's reproductive freedom. This is so sad, that conservatives and GOP just can't seem to get that they were this close to winning women over and becoming the majority.. as they appeared to become advocates for medical autonomy. And now they look like tyrannical abusive monsters again which I can't support nor vote for.
Every time the medical freedom starts to take a step forward and unite everyone, the right goes and screws it up, taking 2 steps back by being on the wrong side of a polarizing debate trying to control women. So depressing.
Every word you have written here radiates with insight to the whole truth of the debate. Leaving each state with the Alioto opinion to decide on the abortion issue, may be what the powers at the top know will separate not only the states further from being a nation; but will also separate us people, while strengthening the polarity of the major issues, we have been debating for months. It seems there is a big plot to destabilize the United States of America. And with this also comes a psychotic devolved-desperation to hold the states together as one nation, brought to us in the way of false pride, an over-inflated ego (seen by others from abroad, like your Aussie friend), covered up crimes, and the erosion of our rights little by little. The caldron of falsehoods perpetrated from the top wants this separation, wants us fighting over these issues of our sovereignty. However, as the curtain becomes transparent, with brilliant writers like yourself, their desire will in the end bring us together. . . . Thus, whatever SCOTUS decides may sadly highlight the psychotic desperation of our falling nation and our conditioned ideological, moral and political differences. Never the less, it is possible those who have a strong case to have an abortion, will find a way, like we did in the 1960s and 70s, when we went to Mexico. Strict laws, unfortunately or fortunately, are great for generating a thriving black market somewhere!
Toby, I have to agree with your Australian friend. The US is well and long overdue for a split. There is no hard and fast tule that says the nation must stay together.
If we refer back to the original succession of the southern states from the union, which regardless of what we’ve been lied to about for over a century, is true and still stands, since the necessary amendment was never lawfully ratified, then we can all agree to disagree and go our own way peaceably. I don’t think it needs to come to war, though. I think we can agree to split in a mostly amicable manner based on our differences.
I say this as someone who walked away from the bread and circuses of the political machinations years ago and opted not to participate in fraud and corruption. It’s only a game played for those who haven’t yet figured out that it’s two sides of the same coin and the only ones being played are those who continue to think they have a say in what the outcome will be. I don’t wear labels and can see the points of both the old guard republicans and and old guard democrats. When I say old, I mean a hundred or so years ago. Perhaps I’m a realistic centrist libertarian. Do your thing, don’t take what isn’t your own, earn your way, and don’t harm others or their property. The end.
That being said, I think those states that opt for the blue will do significantly worse than red states. People who vote red are, by and large, hard working people who are more prone to be self reliant and skilled. We can’t say the same for those on the blue team. They tend to be made up of the overly and shamefully indoctrinated by institutions of “higher” learning, they’re the spoon fed, pacifier, safe space, participation trophy winning, hands out for free stuff, social justice warriors who depend on the media’s shifting winds of change to tell them which issue is most important next. Mostly a group made up of a bunch of whiny sissies who struggle with instructions on how to boil water and get offended at everything. Reactionary instead of introspective with nary an independent thought among them, especially todays lot. Brats is what my parents would refer to people like that as.
Their idea of creativity involves smearing shit on paper and calling it art. They claim they want to save the environment, but won’t forego all the lickies and suckies of their corporate label plastered bodies and accessories. Oh, I know that applies to both red and blue these days. If it’s not a designer brand, unless it’s out of absolute necessity, they won’t dare touch it.
I say this as someone who walked away from the bread and circuses of the political machinations years ago and opted not to participate in fraud and corruption. It’s only a game played for those who haven’t yet figured out that it’s two sides of the same coin and the only ones being played are those who continue to think they have a say in what the outcome will be. I don’t wear labels and can see the points of both the old guard republicans and and old guard democrats. When I say old, I mean a hundred or so years ago. I saw through the fraud and corruption of the entire system many years ago. Most people referred to me as a conspiracy theorist. Trust me, I’d be happier if I was wrong. So would everyone else reading this.
Perhaps I’m a realistic centrist libertarian. Do your thing, don’t take what isn’t your own, earn your way, and don’t harm others or their property. The end.
In the beginning were the States. The States realized they could benefit from a limited federal government. So the States got together and wrote up an agreement amongst themselves whereby they created a federal government, and listed its specific and limited powers. The States were careful to include in the agreement that all other powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government were reserved to the States or to the People. This agreement among the States is known to us today as the US Constitution.
The States were very wise as there are many things for which a one size fits all solution does not work well. Each State has its own constitution and its people can have more of a say in their state and local governments. The States were rightly concerned about giving too mich power to a central government.
This delegation and reservation of powers is called Federalism. Federalism is crucial for avoiding despots and tyranny. We will all do well to remember it and defend it vigorously.
Returning the decision on abortion back to the people and their state governments is the only constitutionally correct solution, it is a wise solution that does not prevent abortion in states where the people so assent, and it corrects a federal government that has developed quite a penchant for unlawfully constructing new powers for itself.
Fear can be generated from any number of hypotheticals - the hyperventilating libs are particularly good at dispensing fear. Courage, free speech, and vigorous defense of life, liberty, and property are the appropriate answers to fear. We should not let fear cause us to lose the core principles by which the Founding Fathers embarked on this experiment in government, which has produced this great nation.