I'd rather live in a society where women didn't feel the need to prostitute themselves, but I don't think it should be a crime.
I believe this woman carries the message Loud 'n Proud. Don't forget to UnMute the vid and restart it from the beginning.
If it were regulated similar to some countries and our own Nevada, I totally agree. It would slow down STD’s, keep the girls off the streets to support their own and their pimp’s drug habits, almost eliminate pimps and they might even have to go to work, slow down the sex trafficking trade in the U.S. add to the tax coffers and maybe give the girls a chance at a 401K and social security. Anyone caught slinging outside of a bonafide house of ill repute gets busted.
Considering government regulation of prostitution annoys me. Just another way to control women and what they do with their own bodies. Plus, there'd be taxes levied so it would end up being just another black market commodity. Sex trafficking will never end until pedophiles and other perversions go away, which will be never.
I won’t go into the moralistic views I have about prostitution but judging from what the girls who worked at the Shamrock “cathouse” told me way back when, no one has more control over a prostitutes body than the woman herself when she’s in a safe atmosphere. She can say no to anyone for any reason but….on the streets? Try telling that to her pimp. At least in a clean and legal atmosphere, the lady has a better chance of making her choice of living without fear.
The story of the 10-year-old girl who had been raped and had to travel to another state for an abortion is tragic, but do you know why we never heard anything about the rapist? He was an illegal alien and, thus, his appearance in the story would work against another narrative, and they've got to protect their narratives.
I kind of followed that story but it seemed to change almost daily. The Indiana doctor who treated the girl and who ran to the media with it is being "disciplined by her employer" for HIPPA violations. The doctor may also be in trouble for failure to report the rape of a minor. There is no evidence that the girl was turned down for an abortion in her home state, but in Ohio, medical emergencies & significant health risk are the only exception to the ban on abortion...rape is not. So I can understand why she would not have even sought an abortion in Ohio. Their AG says that she "would have qualified" under the medical exception, but that's a theoretical hindsight ruling. As you said, the immigration status of the rapist jiggered their narrative. Not only did the Indiana doctor not report the rape of a 10 year old child, the Ohio AG claimed there is no evidence of any such rape on record there. Gotta love it when no one reports the rape of a girl who has yet to start 5th grade by a 27 year old man, and he's still out there off of everyone's radar screen. When Ideologies Collide. I don't know the ethnicity/nationality or immigration status of the raped girl's family and if this is a factor in the rape not being reported. There's so little media reporting on this, he may be a relative for all we know. Apparently the safety and the peace of mind of the girls & women in the community are of situational importance.
While I agree with you about "protecting the other narrative" allow me to tell you him being illegal is besides the point. She was raped and HAD to go to another state to abort. Another issue concerns me as well in this case: How many 9 and 10 y/o girls have became impregnated? What the pharmaceutical / chemical industries has to do with this ?
I wasn't sure if Elizabeth Warren was still alive or if she had gone on to the happy hunting ground, but apparently, she's still kicking, and she believes that the abortion issue is something that she can hang her relevancy hat on. Watching people like her, it's best to do so on a comedy channel so I went to CNN, and there she was. On overturning Roe versus Wade, Pocahontas says that the Supreme Court cannot be the last word on this issue, and that the legislative branch is the branch that should make those decisions, not the Supreme Court. How dare they insert themselves into the abortion debate? Wait a minute, think about that for a moment. It shouldn't take much longer. For decades now, the left has gone on and on about how Roe versus Wade was settled law. Unhappy with laws created by legislatures throughout the country, they were the ones who decided that the Supreme Court needs to settle that issue, not the legislature. Once the 1973 Supreme Court found a way to insert abortion into the Constitution, even though it was clearly not there, and decided that abortion was to be legal throughout the country, the pro-abortion left applauded that decision and, for decades, they pilloried any legislator who would dare challenge it. After all, it was settled law, and once the Supreme Court made the decision, no one dare question it. Now, of course, the same people are aghast and outraged that the Supreme Court would dare insert itself into the abortion issue. It sort of clears up any questions as to why it's so difficult to carry on a reasonable conversation with someone on the left. Logic has no part in their thinking process. Whatever meets their needs is a fact to them, however contradictory. Warren also wants to shut down any pregnancy center that does not do abortions.
I wonder where Swallwell and Duckworth would ever get an idea like that. Clarence Thomas's own words in his concurring opinion (to the Dobbs decision): "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents." Griswold - birth control access Lawrence - consensual sex between people of the same sex Obergefell - same sex marriage
Pushing back to the states or reversing the fabrication of rights at the judicial level (rather than at the legislative or constitutional amendment level) is not being "made illegal," just as overturning Roe did not make abortion illegal. Rights and laws have been fabricated by SCOTUS...it has no such power to do so. I wish Thomas' comments had also been directed at rulings impacting the unconstitutional power the Fed has amassed. I believe it was implied, and that's what has the corrupt power mongers (of both parties) in DC scared. Take away the unconstitutionally amassed power, and there will be nothing for the corruption to chase. So they throw the "we'll save you from these beasts" hyperbole at us, when it's the pols that put the beasts in the middle to avoid direct accountability in the first place. I am not as well-versed in some of these rulings as I might be. I was just reading about Griswold. Apparently the Right to Privacy that SCOTUS fabricated in that case was the foundation for the rulings in Lawrence and in Obergefell, as well as other cases.
Ken Anderson,, As far as I understand the SC didn't overturn R v W but only modified this resolution allowing each state to decide yes / no on the issue.
Just to clarify your phrasing...it has always been for the states to decide. The Supreme Court overturned the decision because it was never a Federal issue in the first place. This reset things to where they should have been in the first place...for each state to decide.
I also get a kick out of it when they claim walking away from a decision by 8 white men and a black man should override the decisions of elected state legislatures. Somehow that "is a threat to democracy"? I guess if men don't decide the question, it isn't democratic?