Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Brennan77

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Apr 30, 2019
    Messages
    126
    Reaction score
    152
    Age
    42
    Location
    New Orleans
    Offline
    Agreed. I'm just saying that I would hope the courts don't accept those tests as valid evidence, which would discourage the use of the tests to begin with.
    I get what your saying and it's important that the courts reject it as valid evidence.

    However, that doesn't stop law enforcement from using it to harass and traumatize people. Most law enforcement agencies still try to get people to take a lie detector test allegedly as an "investigative tool." In reality, they know the test is unreliable and that an innocent person accused of a crime is likely to fail the test. They then use that failed test to harass and traumatize innocent people.

    If you've never been interrogated by law enforcement in their building as a suspect or don't know someone who has, you don't realize how ruthless they are. If you've never been under investigation for a crime you didn't commit, you don't realize how traumatizing and disruptive that is to your life. And that's just for being unjustly accused of stealing a couple thousand dollars out of former employer's safe.

    It's a lot more disruptive and traumatic to accuse and harass a woman who has just lost her baby of killing her baby. At least lie detectors can't be forced on anyone, these lung tests are being done without consent. If lie detector tests could be done without consent, law enforcement would be using it even more than they already do.

    The only acceptable solution starts and ends with laws prohibiting the use of lung tests. It's not enough that the courts don't accept it as evidence. That has not and will not protect women who have just lost their child from being further harassed and traumatized by law enforcement.
     
    I get what your saying and it's important that the courts reject it as valid evidence.

    However, that doesn't stop law enforcement from using it to harass and traumatize people. Most law enforcement agencies still try to get people to take a lie detector test allegedly as an "investigative tool." In reality, they know the test is unreliable and that an innocent person accused of a crime is likely to fail the test. They then use that failed test to harass and traumatize innocent people.

    If you've never been interrogated by law enforcement in their building as a suspect or don't know someone who has, you don't realize how ruthless they are. If you've never been under investigation for a crime you didn't commit, you don't realize how traumatizing and disruptive that is to your life. And that's just for being unjustly accused of stealing a couple thousand dollars out of former employer's safe.

    It's a lot more disruptive and traumatic to accuse and harass a woman who has just lost her baby of killing her baby. At least lie detectors can't be forced on anyone, these lung tests are being done without consent. If lie detector tests could be done without consent, law enforcement would be using it even more than they already do.

    The only acceptable solution starts and ends with laws prohibiting the use of lung tests. It's not enough that the courts don't accept it as evidence. That has not and will not protect women who have just lost their child from being further harassed and traumatized by law enforcement.
    Well, I've worked at multiple law firms and seen it all before and I've seen friends and extended family accused, convicted, exonerated, all of the above. I recognize all of the ways people's lives can be disrupted and be traumatized. And yes, just being accused is bad enough on its own.

    I completely agree with prohibiting the tests, but until that happens there has to be other means of disallowing it's use by the prosecution against a defendant.
     
    Well, I've worked at multiple law firms and seen it all before and I've seen friends and extended family accused, convicted, exonerated, all of the above. I recognize all of the ways people's lives can be disrupted and be traumatized. And yes, just being accused is bad enough on its own.

    I completely agree with prohibiting the tests, but until that happens there has to be other means of disallowing it's use by the prosecution against a defendant.
    There is a guy i work with at the plant that his wife was killed by Derrick Todd Lee. Before they realized it was Lee, he was accused of it. He said he spent like $20K defending himself, and that didn't even include a trial. Luckily it never went that far before they realized there was someone elses DNA from skin under her fingernail. Which was months later. He said he was in one of those rooms, he said they even did the good cop bad cop on him. They told all of their friends they knew he was guilty, they told his family and hers they knew he was guilty and it was just a matter of time before they had all the evidence together. He said everyone he knew basically hated him and blamed him. Once it was proven it wasn't him, they were like, well, you deserved it because you were a wife beater. (they found a journal where she wrote about how they fought all the time and she wanted to leave him). To this day this guy HATES police officers because of it. He lost his job, all of his friends, still has family that won't talk to him.
    So I could imagine accusing someone of killing their child from a super inaccurate test could ruin someones life.
     
    There is a guy i work with at the plant that his wife was killed by Derrick Todd Lee. Before they realized it was Lee, he was accused of it. He said he spent like $20K defending himself, and that didn't even include a trial. Luckily it never went that far before they realized there was someone elses DNA from skin under her fingernail. Which was months later. He said he was in one of those rooms, he said they even did the good cop bad cop on him. They told all of their friends they knew he was guilty, they told his family and hers they knew he was guilty and it was just a matter of time before they had all the evidence together. He said everyone he knew basically hated him and blamed him. Once it was proven it wasn't him, they were like, well, you deserved it because you were a wife beater. (they found a journal where she wrote about how they fought all the time and she wanted to leave him). To this day this guy HATES police officers because of it. He lost his job, all of his friends, still has family that won't talk to him.
    So I could imagine accusing someone of killing their child from a super inaccurate test could ruin someones life.

    NSFW - Language

     
    There is a guy i work with at the plant that his wife was killed by Derrick Todd Lee. Before they realized it was Lee, he was accused of it. He said he spent like $20K defending himself, and that didn't even include a trial. Luckily it never went that far before they realized there was someone elses DNA from skin under her fingernail. Which was months later. He said he was in one of those rooms, he said they even did the good cop bad cop on him. They told all of their friends they knew he was guilty, they told his family and hers they knew he was guilty and it was just a matter of time before they had all the evidence together. He said everyone he knew basically hated him and blamed him. Once it was proven it wasn't him, they were like, well, you deserved it because you were a wife beater. (they found a journal where she wrote about how they fought all the time and she wanted to leave him). To this day this guy HATES police officers because of it. He lost his job, all of his friends, still has family that won't talk to him.
    So I could imagine accusing someone of killing their child from a super inaccurate test could ruin someones life.
    Certainly there are stories like that out there. It's no doubt sad when people's live are ruined because of being falsely accused.
     
    Reminds me of this video I saw years ago.


    The first half of that is realy good. The second half, as i understand why, but he never brings up officers misremembering things. But he did reinforce all those people telling on themselves voluntarily.
    One of the things that bugs me is the fact what you tell on officer will be used against you, but its hearsay if what he says is for you... thats just crazy to me..

    Coincidentally, i have been supenoed as a witness next month. It invloved a group of motorbikes. There were 8 or 9 of them behind me on a very curvy road in Mauerpas (in Livingston Parish). A few of them decided they were gonna pass me in a no passing zone on Hwy 22 (double yellow lines). When a couple of them (or maybe it was 3) decided the speed limit was too slow and tried to pass me. well, a car came around the curve and one of them slammed on his brakes and took out all 8 or so bikes behind him. For a split second i thought about slowing down to let them get over, but i had already been worried about them running into the back of me before then. but before i could react, it was over and all of the bikes were on the ground. I could not tell if they hit the side of my car or not. I pulled over in a church parking lot and helped them get out of the road. one had broken his arm and another had broken a leg. After looking at my car, i didn't see any damage, only a scuff mark on the rim, which was really just smeared dirt. When the cop got there and asked me what happened, i told him some tried to pass me and they had to hit the brakes and thats what caused the accident,. He asked which one and i told him i could not tell which one it was. I didn't know which bike, or even which color helment they were wearing, as i was trying not wreck myself.
    These guys were all part of a motorcycle club. Their leader of whatever he was asked for my phone number. He called me later that day and was trying to ask questions about what i remember. I told him the same thing i told the cop. Come to find out, the guy they put at fault was the only one who didn't have insurance. They put at fault, not the one who slammed on the brakes, but the guy behind him who hit him when he did, even though they were both breaking the law. So i assume this guy is catching hell because he was the one who broke his arm and wrist (who was a mechanic) and now he can't get paid for damage to his bike or himself, and probably couldn't work.
    I can't really remember what i told the cop. I am sure i told him the same thing i remember happening, but that was in Janurary. I don't think anything i said will impact me as i am just a witness. But i do remember the cop calling me that same day and telling me the guy told him i sped up and wouldn't let them pass. Which he even knew was BS and didn't believe him.
     
    They are really lost - they were told to stay out of it by their voters, but they don’t seem to be able to comprehend it. So very privileged.

     
    A week after Ohioans voted to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, members of the state legislature are considering a bill that would give tax credits for donations to anti-abortion facilities.

    On Tuesday, the Ohio senate finance committee discussed a bill from the state senator Sandra O’Brien, a Republican, who proposed that individuals who give to “qualifying pregnancy resource centers” may be eligible for tax credits, at a cost of up to $10m to Ohio.

    Anti-abortion counseling centers – which are also known as crisis pregnancy centers – offer free services to pregnant women, are frequently faith-based and aim to convince people to continue their pregnancies.

    They have also been accused of attempting to mislead the people who walk through their doors. Because these centers are often located next to abortion clinics and have names like “Birth Choice” or “Woman’s Choice”, critics say they purposely lead people seeking abortions to enter them by accident and then give them inaccurate information about abortion.

    A report for the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which supports abortion rights and analyzed 188 centers, found that more than 70% used some kind of misleading technique in their digital advertising. Almost 40% did not say on their homepage that they do not provide abortion, while 10% exaggerated the mental health risks of abortion and 7% exaggerated the possibility of complications in future pregnancies.

    In the committee meeting, O’Brien said that there are more than 175 “pregnancy resource centers” in Ohio. (Her bill would specifically apply to donations to nonprofit centers.) More than 2,500 centers now dot the US; they outnumber abortion clinics three to one.

    “Their work and care day in and day out shows their commitment to serving women and families around them, and serving the lives of the unborn,” O’Brien said. “A tax credit is the least we can do.”…..

     
    DES MOINES — Pressed on abortion at a Christian conservative gathering, GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley said Friday that she would sign a six-week abortion ban in her home state of South Carolina if she were still governor.


    Haley has tried to strike a more nuanced tone on abortion than some of her fellow Republican hopefuls by calling for legislators to seek areas of “consensus” at the federal level. She has also said that while she opposes abortion, she “doesn’t judge anyone for being pro-choice.”

    At the same time, she has previously said she would support any restriction on the procedure that can pass while sidestepping calls for a particular limit. At a forum on Friday for 2024 candidates hosted by evangelical organization the Family Leader, Haley was asked to be more specific about which types of laws she supports.


    The fine line she has tried to walk has brought criticism from both ends of the political spectrum, with some antiabortion activists skeptical of her answers and Democrats attacking Haley as extreme despite her talk of compromise.


    “Nikki Haley is no moderate — she’s an anti-abortion MAGA extremist who wants to rip away women’s freedoms just like she did when she was South Carolina governor,” said Ammar Moussa, the director of rapid response for President Biden’s reelection campaign……..

     
    Yeah, she's just pandering imo. If somehow she wins the nomination, she's gonna change her tune. How she governance from the Oval Office, who knows?

    I'm sorry, to me she is not a serious candidate, anyone who states one of their first actions as newly elected President would be to pardon Trump? I think we know how she would govern.....
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom