T O P
Mr_Greamy88

It'll be really interesting if women start filling life insurance claims for miscarriages and such because of things like the heartbeat legislation


TheTorivian

They'd have to get an insurance company to sell them a life insurance policy that covers it first. So unlikely.


Mr_Greamy88

Agreed but it would depend on the current policy verbiage too. It would be interesting to see some pro-life judge (assuming they are sincerely) rule in favor of someone claiming life insurance for a miscarriage. Taxes are interesting too since I think LA was trying to change citizenship to began at heartbeat or something similar as well.


tbia

I'm pro-life and I think there should be a tax exemption for pregnancies. Obviously proof is an issue, but deductions are generally to help offset expenses, and there are most definitely expenses with any pregnancy. Maybe not the same value as the current child deduction, but something.


Mr_Greamy88

I think you would see a very different side if government (taxes/deductions) and companies (life/health insurance, etc) suddenly had to pay out benefits to people to truly support pro-life goals. If they were truly sincere then alternatives to abortion would have already been pursued by legislators like child care support or paid maternity leave. The current legislation effort to ban abortion just pushes underlying problems to other areas instead of mitigating why someone would get an abortion in the first place.


bruteneighbors

Politicians and lawyers write most of insurance law, and therefore base policy standards. So it’s possible policies can be created. I don’t know who will decide premiums tho.


WeiliiEyedWizard

Deborah Gonzalez really is that bitch huh? Every time she comes up in the news I am more and more happy to have voted for her. We should keep her around for a while.


DanforthWhitcomb_

One example of her doing something you agree with should not overcome the myriad examples of her mismanagement of the DA’s Office—IE hiring someone with a history of *Brady* violations, making them #3 in her office and then acting shocked when they commit one. There’s also her inability to hire/retain enough prosecutors to actually prosecute the cases that she does decide to pursue without help from the state.


WarcockMountainMan

She literally had to be trained to conduct a trial and then she still can’t do it


DanforthWhitcomb_

IMO the administrative issues are a far bigger problem. The DA’s job (especially in a larger office like this one) is simply to run things and she’s totally failed at that—ya know that PAO she has? Yeah, that used to be an ADA position. She converted it when the staffing problems began and she couldn’t hire enough ADAs. Her skill (or lack thereof) at trial isn’t really a fair comparison, as Mauldin was no better. The difference is that he had a functional office without any major issues, in sharp contrast to the dysfunctional mess we have now.


WarcockMountainMan

No im saying she had literally never been in a trial ever before election. I totally agree tho that she’s been an absolute disaster


DanforthWhitcomb_

I know. She was a media attorney. My point was that her inability to run a trial isn’t really a fair criticism, as it’s not her job. Her job is to run the DA’s Office, and she’s shown that she’s an extremely poor manager who can’t even do that.


WarcockMountainMan

Makes sense I’m just parroting what a friend of mine in that office said. He’s my go to source. I’m pretty progressive but you should know how to do your job imo


DanforthWhitcomb_

Don’t get me wrong—he’s right. It’s more that a DA isn’t hired to be a trial lawyer, they’re hired to run the DA’s Office.


golden_buttons

Really? I know 3 people who work in that office and when I asked they said its fully staffed and well run other than that the offices are randomly spread out on two diff floors instead of in one place, but thats what ACC gov gave them


WarcockMountainMan

They lied to you or you are lying to us. One of the two


golden_buttons

Lol oddly defensive response. Literally texted 2 of them with SS and one said "I doubt they've actually talked to someone from our staff"


pumpkinescobar70

She also lied to the ABH about the incident involving her friend and a bar "fight". Then had to retract it.


Will_McLean

No, she isn't. Though she's correct on this.


Previous_Minimum_116

If it comes to court cases and you are on a jury, if you believe a law to be unjust you can say not guilty no matter how well they prove their case. It will eventually break the justice system because their funds and time to prosecute is not unlimited. They will have to quit trying those cases if all they get is hung jury over and over.


Previous_Minimum_116

https://libertas.org/interview/how-juries-can-refuse-to-convict-people-for-breaking-an-unjust-law/#:~:text=Judges%20even%20have%20discretion%20inside,stops%20is%20with%20the%20jury.


[deleted]

How is this different than the woman who refused to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples?


Waveshine420

This shouldn’t be a surprise, Ms. González chooses not to prosecute most things that come across her desk.


Tech_Philosophy

That's what you get when there is a breakdown in people's belief in the law. When you have legislators that won't legalize relatively safe and popular things like cannabis, it is expected people will ignore the law. When you have the supreme court ignoring its own court precedent, it is reasonable and predictable that people stop seeing the law as meaning anything other than what the person in charge says it means that day. Expect way, way more people ignoring laws wholesale in our nation going forward. That is the consequences of voter's actions over the past few decades.


Waveshine420

I would offer that people ignoring laws is the consequence of nothing more than their choice to ignore the law. You can buy into the idea that people commit crime as a rebuff to the system but its more their choice to commit crime because they want to. ​ Also, precedent deserves to be uprooted in certain instances. The Supreme Court shouldn't be able to mask a statute as an opinion and force the States to abide by it. In the same way that the Court couldn't force all the States to outlaw abortion, the Court can't force all the States to regulate abortion within the confides of whatever the Court sees fit. Wrong branch for that


Tech_Philosophy

Yes, you have an institutionalist take, and that's sort of my point. When people stop believing in the institutions, the institutions cease to be. They lose their power, because people's belief in the institution is literally all the institution is. That is now happening to the supreme court. It has been happening to the executive branch over the last 20 years and will accelerate further in the future. Progressives have noticed that's Trump strategy of banging your first on the table to get what you want no matter how lawful is actually quite effective. They would be fools not to do the same. I certainly am willing to cede to you the moral high ground on your first point. I am not saying what is moral, I am saying how the physical reality of the human world works, and we should care about that only to the degree we want to engineer the outcome of our society. Some people care about outcomes. Some people care about processes. Neither is wrong. We just happen to be living in interesting times for people who care about outcomes, because outcomes have now become easier to predict, including the supreme court reversing itself on Roe a second time in the future. Now the reversing is publicly obvious and allowable, it will happen more frequently.


Waveshine420

Fair take friend, have a good day


LittleBillTheFarmer

Question posed in response specifically to you point of breaking down the institution. What happens without a well regulated institution when we cross the line of quantum computation and 90% of our workforce is eliminated over a 10-12 year period? IMO, the necessity of a big government that represents the people is undeniable. Very soon we are going to be fighting for food. Those institutions don’t necessarily need to be dismantled. They do need to be restructured but without them too many will die in anarchy. That being said RvW being overturned is fucking terrifying to me. It was the only federal precedent that kept the government from making any new law concerning the sanctity of our body. They just got us all in lines turning over all of our personal information and taking a vaccine from men in uniform at mass vaccine sites. Without RvW what’s next?


[deleted]

[удалено]


DanforthWhitcomb_

The problem is that she’s not doing it out of a moral or ethical judgement (even though that is how she presents it to the public), she’s doing it because she cannot hire enough ADAs to get anywhere close to fully staffed. Most of the major cases are being prosecuted by state-funded PAC attorneys temporarily assigned to the Western Circuit for that case alone, not actual Western Circuit ADAs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DanforthWhitcomb_

That’s not a rebuttal in any way, shape or form. It’s simply her way of posturing in an attempt to distract people from her maladministration in office.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DanforthWhitcomb_

No, it actually is. You’re trying (and failing) to act like she’s on some moral crusade when the reality is that she’s just an extremely poor manager who cannot staff her office enough to actually do her job. > Capability and motive aren't mutually exclusive, so your argument is dumb as fuck. You’re confusing your own inability to actually defend her with my statement that she’s utterly incompetent.