Roe v. Wade overturned?

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
102,844
7,858
113
Moccasin Flats
No NAPA between Nanaimo and Courtenay. I only do Lordco because they have some of a branch in Qualicum, a decent store in Parksville and the island distribution center in Parksville. Usually I give them the old one and hope they can match it. Works most of the time.
Napa delivers. Cost of parts is nuts. Have you tried Rock Auto? Its online but super cheap if you can wait a couple days. Best thing is a photo of every part they carry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pgs

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,331
113
Vancouver Island
I use Rockauto. Also Pars Avatar and Amazon. Got to watch pricing, sometimes when you include the freight the price isn't much different than local.
I don't like the way parts books are set up on these sites, as they often show parts that don't fit your vehicle mixed in with ones that do. The systems seem to be set up to encourage impulse buying.
Another one I use for tools and that is Vevor. Lots of other cool shit at decent prices.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
102,844
7,858
113
Moccasin Flats
I use Rockauto. Also Pars Avatar and Amazon. Got to watch pricing, sometimes when you include the freight the price isn't much different than local.
I don't like the way parts books are set up on these sites, as they often show parts that don't fit your vehicle mixed in with ones that do. The systems seem to be set up to encourage impulse buying.
Another one I use for tools and that is Vevor. Lots of other cool shit at decent prices.
If I need something right away Ill still order from rock auto and buy local. Then I take the Rock Auto parts back to the local shop and pocket the difference.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: taxslave

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
7,124
1,364
113
New Brunswick
... JFC...


THIS is just absolutely disgusting.

This... piece of absolute garbage needs his computer checked.

Absolutely just... batshit crazy.

And THIS guy - and others like him - think they have the right to dictate how women concern themselves with their health care?

So here's my question, when is someone going to start calling HIM a "groomer" because, OBVIOUSLY he thinks it's okay for men to rape children? Let's be clear, ANYONE who rapes or abuses a child sexually is not "in a relationship" other than Power, control and calling it a 'relationship' is just insane.

He loves to throw the newest buzzword for the right around... but seems to me HE fits the bill more than those he calls 'groomers'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,983
4,304
113
Washington DC
... JFC...


THIS is just absolutely disgusting.

This... piece of absolute garbage needs his computer checked.

Absolutely just... batshit crazy.

And THIS guy - and others like him - think they have the right to dictate how women concern themselves with their health care?

So here's my question, when is someone going to start calling HIM a "groomer" because, OBVIOUSLY he thinks it's okay for men to rape children? Let's be clear, ANYONE who rapes or abuses a child sexually is not "in a relationship" other than Power, control and calling it a 'relationship' is just insane.

He loves to throw the newest buzzword for the right around... but seems to me HE fits the bill more than those he calls 'groomers'.
Nah, the people who throw the word "groomer" around approve of raping underage girls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
102,844
7,858
113
Moccasin Flats
Ummmm. Read the article.

Its another click bait misquote like the "forced to carry dead baby for 10 days" bullshit of recent.

Dont post this click bait bullshit.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
32,404
2,387
113
Nebraska woman charged with helping daughter have abortion
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Josh Funk
Publishing date:Aug 09, 2022 • 10 hours ago • 3 minute read • Join the conversation

OMAHA, Nebraska — A Nebraska woman has been charged with helping her teenage daughter end her pregnancy at about 24 weeks after investigators uncovered Facebook messages in which the two discussed using medication to induce an abortion and plans to burn the fetus afterward.


The prosecutor handling the case said it’s the first time he has charged anyone for illegally performing an abortion after 20 weeks, a restriction that was passed in 2010. Before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, states weren’t allowed to enforce abortion bans until the point at which a fetus is considered viable outside the womb, at roughly 24 weeks.

In one of the Facebook messages, Jessica Burgess, 41, tells her then 17-year-old daughter that she has obtained abortion pills for her and gives her instructions on how to take them to end the pregnancy.

The daughter, meanwhile, “talks about how she can’t wait to get the ‘thing’ out of her body,” a detective wrote in court documents. “I will finally be able to wear jeans,” she says in one of the messages. Law enforcement authorities obtained the messages with a search warrant, and detailed some of them in court documents.


In early June, the mother and daughter were only charged with a single felony for removing, concealing or abandoning a body, and two misdemeanors: concealing the death of another person and false reporting. It wasn’t until about a month later, after investigators reviewed the private Facebook messages, that they added the felony abortion-related charges against the mother. The daughter, who is now 18, is being charged as an adult at prosecutors’ request.

Burgess’ attorney didn’t immediately respond to a message Tuesday, and the public defender representing the daughter declined to comment.

When first interviewed, the two told investigators that the teen had unexpectedly given birth to a stillborn baby in the shower in the early morning hours of April 22. They said they put the fetus in a bag, placed it in a box in the back of their van, and later drove several miles north of town, where they buried the body with the help of a 22-year-old man.


The man, whom The Associated Press is not identifying because he has only been charged with a misdemeanor, has pleaded no contest to helping bury the fetus on rural land his parents own north of Norfolk in northeast Nebraska. He’s set to be sentenced later this month.

In court documents, the detective said the fetus showed signs of “thermal wounds” and that the man told investigators the mother and daughter did burn it. He also wrote that the daughter confirmed in the Facebook exchange with her mother that the two would “burn the evidence afterward.” Based on medical records, the fetus was more than 23 weeks old, the detective wrote.

Burgess later admitted to investigators to buying the abortion pills “for the purpose of instigating a miscarriage.”


At first, both mother and daughter said they didn’t remember the date when the stillbirth happened, but according to the detective, the daughter later confirmed the date by consulting her Facebook messages. After that he sought the warrant, he said.

Madison County Attorney Joseph Smith told the Lincoln Journal Star that he’s never filed charges like this related to performing an abortion illegally in his 32 years as the county prosecutor. He didn’t immediately respond to a message from the AP on Tuesday.

The group National Advocates for Pregnant Women, which supports abortion rights, found 1,331 arrests or detentions of women for crimes related to their pregnancy from 2006 to 2020.

In addition to its current 20-week abortion ban, Nebraska tried — but failed — earlier this year to pass a so-called trigger law that would have banned all abortions when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

A Facebook spokesman declined to talk about the details of this case, but the company has said that officials at the social media giant “always scrutinize every government request we receive to make sure it is legally valid.”

Facebook says it will fight back against requests that it thinks are invalid or too broad, but the company said it gave investigators information in about 88% of the 59,996 times when the government requested data in the second half of last year.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,769
1,157
113

And so it starts.

Thank your state!
It just doesn't seem to be terribly accurate tho. Aside from the optics there's really no practical difference at this point. These american states are so tiny that even if you're in the middle of indiana you're just 100 miles to the next state. Like a 2 hour drive or less would put you at a number of places willing to do it. And i can imagine facilities close to the state border will be making sure they have an option available to get the business.

Its less of a drive than burns lake to prince george and i know people who have to do that trip for medical reasons fairly often, I feel like this is kind of a bit of a nothing-burger.
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
7,124
1,364
113
New Brunswick
It just doesn't seem to be terribly accurate tho. Aside from the optics there's really no practical difference at this point. These american states are so tiny that even if you're in the middle of indiana you're just 100 miles to the next state. Like a 2 hour drive or less would put you at a number of places willing to do it. And i can imagine facilities close to the state border will be making sure they have an option available to get the business.

Its less of a drive than burns lake to prince george and i know people who have to do that trip for medical reasons fairly often, I feel like this is kind of a bit of a nothing-burger.

Have you ever driven through the US? They're not THAT close and not 'that' tiny.

Also there is the fact that not everyone can leave the state, just like not everyone can leave a province in Canada.

I think you're missing the entire point of this.

A "nothing-burger"... okay, sure. Maybe to YOU but to the people that live there... it's pretty goddamn important.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,769
1,157
113
Have you ever driven through the US? They're not THAT close and not 'that' tiny.
Yes. Have you ever driven through a province? The states are THAT close and THAT tiny. ;)

Again for most people it looks like you're talking about a few hour's drive. I have to drive for an hour and a half each way every month just to get my eyes treated. A very significant portion of Canada's population has to travel for more than 2 hours just to get basic tests done never mind an abortion. But i've never heard anyone suggest they wouldn't live in those areas due to lack of easy access to abortion services.

Also there is the fact that not everyone can leave the state, just like not everyone can leave a province in Canada.
What are you talking about? Anyone can leave a province in Canada. Unless you're in jail or something but if you manage to get pregnant there then there's some additional questions to be asked.


I think you're missing the entire point of this.
Entirely possible - feel free to school me. From my perspective and lived experiences this is really nothing. People in Canada live with this already and have for many decades and it's just never been an issue. I'm quite open to the possibility i'm missing something entirely, and i do mean that sincerely, but as it is i just can't see someone basing whether or not they move to a state for work primarily on abortion access being less than a few hours away.


A "nothing-burger"... okay, sure. Maybe to YOU but to the people that live there... it's pretty goddamn important.
I suspect (but could be wrong) that the 'importance' is based entirely on ideological position and not on any kind of practical reasoning when it comes to the specific issue of access in this case.

But - if enough people ARE of that kind of mind then they are able to elect officials who would allow a reasonable level of abortion to be lawful,

Personally i'm pro-choice although i'm against later term abortions. I feel that near-bans (bans except for rare circumstance) are pretty hard to defend logically or form a point of view of law. But if the worst case is that until they can elect another gov't that they have to drive for a few hours I just don't see how that would be what deterred a person from moving to that state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IdRatherBeSkiing

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
7,124
1,364
113
New Brunswick
Yes. Have you ever driven through a province? The states are THAT close and THAT tiny. ;)
I have; go to another province almost weekly.

I've also driven halfway across the US. The states are not THAT close nor are they THAT tiny.

Again for most people it looks like you're talking about a few hour's drive.

A drive some people cannot make.

I have to drive for an hour and a half each way every month just to get my eyes treated. A very significant portion of Canada's population has to travel for more than 2 hours just to get basic tests done never mind an abortion. But i've never heard anyone suggest they wouldn't live in those areas due to lack of easy access to abortion services.

That's a factor someone might have in moving to a new state for a new job. It's a health care issue to be considered.

What are you talking about? Anyone can leave a province in Canada. Unless you're in jail or something but if you manage to get pregnant there then there's some additional questions to be asked.

I have a friend who doesn't leave NB unless I take him, because he cannot leave due to no vehicle.

A LOT of people in my town - seniors, university kids - can't leave the province because of no vehicle. And paying 100 bucks (one way) for a cab just to go grocery shopping - where they won't wait for you regardless - is insane.

That's what I mean.

Entirely possible - feel free to school me. From my perspective and lived experiences this is really nothing.

Well your lived experiences are selective. They're YOUR experiences, and unless you're able to get pregnant and have had to deal with the issue, your perspective is only partly formed in reality/facts.

People in Canada live with this already and have for many decades and it's just never been an issue.

Cause it's Canada. We're talking the US here.

I'm quite open to the possibility i'm missing something entirely, and i do mean that sincerely, but as it is i just can't see someone basing whether or not they move to a state for work primarily on abortion access being less than a few hours away.

It's a health care issue. It's an issue that a company DOES have to consider some employees may figure into wanting to relocate. As for the access - assume that the person does have a way to travel - the point is they shouldn't HAVE to, in order to get health care. Throw in that there are states who are trying to push the "Even if you travel you'll be held for X reason", that takes away any freedom of movement.

I suspect (but could be wrong) that the 'importance' is based entirely on ideological position and not on any kind of practical reasoning when it comes to the specific issue of access in this case.

Nah, health care is pretty practical actually.

But - if enough people ARE of that kind of mind then they are able to elect officials who would allow a reasonable level of abortion to be lawful,

True, but UNTIL then they have however many years to suffer now with lack of health care when it shouldn't be an issue.

Personally i'm pro-choice although i'm against later term abortions. I feel that near-bans (bans except for rare circumstance) are pretty hard to defend logically or form a point of view of law. But if the worst case is that until they can elect another gov't that they have to drive for a few hours I just don't see how that would be what deterred a person from moving to that state.

Only extreme people are actual "anti-abortion". Most everyone is okay with abortions 'in certain circumstances'.

I could give a lot of hypotheticals of situations where someone wouldn't move to a state that's got strict abortion laws even if they're trying for a new job. It's not that hard to come up with. And it's obviously a big deal enough when a company with a 100 plus year history in a state is thinking of changing because the state is no longer a good fit for said company.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,009
1,735
113
Toronto, ON
Yes. Have you ever driven through a province? The states are THAT close and THAT tiny. ;)
In the maritimes the provinces are considerably smaller so comparisons don't really fit. So she may not be the best judge of that. :)

But yes, getting into another state can be quite quick. Some states are long though so one direction may be longer than others. When I drove to SK from Toronto through the states, I was almost completely through my 4th state before I reached a point where straight north of me would not be ON.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,769
1,157
113
I've also driven halfway across the US. The states are not THAT close nor are they THAT tiny.
Well google maps and basic geography would seem to disagree. They're that close and that tiny. Are you suggesting it takes substantially LONGER than a few hours to drive from indiana to the nearest state?
A drive some people cannot make.
Nonsense. There's always a way, and there's busses as well. That's not a reasonable argument.
That's a factor someone might have in moving to a new state for a new job. It's a health care issue to be considered.
If you mean 'in theory' - sure. If you mean in the real world? I doubt it.
I have a friend who doesn't leave NB unless I take him, because he cannot leave due to no vehicle.
Well a) - of course he can leave, take a bus/train/plane/whatever and b) oh look he got out because someone was able to give him a lift. Which is what always happens. If someone has a medical need they are always going to know someone with a car or the like.
A LOT of people in my town - seniors, university kids - can't leave the province because of no vehicle. And paying 100 bucks (one way) for a cab just to go grocery shopping - where they won't wait for you regardless - is insane.
Of course they can leave. We've been over this - that is a completely nonsense argument from the get go. "inconvenient" isn't the same as "can't". And for gods sake, we're not talking about a weekly trip to get groceries. I would HOPE they don't need an abortion every week.
Well your lived experiences are selective. They're YOUR experiences, and unless you're able to get pregnant and have had to deal with the issue, your perspective is only partly formed in reality/facts.
Ahhhh - so now 'lived experiences have no value in your world :). How interesting - i'm sure there's a large number of people who'd love to talk to you about your opinions on that. In any case you're wrong entirely. They are not 'subjective'. And dismissing them shows a lack of sincerity on your part - are you ONLY interested in data that agrees with you?

The fact is i have a great deal of experience with people who must travel to get medical treatments. I've had to myself. So it's 100 percent entirely valid and it does not agree with your position.
Cause it's Canada. We're talking the US here.
Sure - humans are entirely different there. Nothing like the humans we have here.
It's a health care issue. It's an issue that a company DOES have to consider some employees may figure into wanting to relocate.
I doubt it's much of a factor at all, and you haven't presented anything that would suggest otherwise.
As for the access - assume that the person does have a way to travel - the point is they shouldn't HAVE to, in order to get health care. Throw in that there are states who are trying to push the "Even if you travel you'll be held for X reason", that takes away any freedom of movement.
OF COURSE THEY SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO TRAVEL TO GET HEALTH CARE!!!! - that's already life in MANY places in the states, it's certainly the case in canada as well, there is NOTHING in the constitution that says "thou shalt have access to health care and abortions on every city block". Emergency services are one thing but if you need treatment you may have to go to the place that has treatment. It's always been that way, it's that way now, it will likely be that way in the future unless i can get this damned teleporter i've been working on up and running. (so far it only works with socks. And i can't bring them back.)

And the legal types are already shooting down the whole hypothetical 'if you do it elsewhere" thing - which is why nobody has tried it. So lets not talk about fantasy hypotheticals. That WOULD be a gross overreach.

This is an EVERY DAY thing for MANY treatments in both Canada and the US. So that argument falls entirely flat on it's face.
Nah, health care is pretty practical actually.
Sure it is - and they have access to health care so there's no problem.
True, but UNTIL then they have however many years to suffer now with lack of health care when it shouldn't be an issue.
It should absolutely be an issue. It's unfortunate that it hasn't been settled previously but roe vs wade has always been called sketchy law by legal types. I think it's too bad that the courts couldn't have somehow produced a timeline, like said "but there should be a 3 year transition period' or something to give people time to have state elections around the issue and have a dialogue and such - that would have been the right thing to do - but i understand they may not have had that power.

So now some people in some states will have an inconvenience to deal with until time has passed and they do get a resolution. And that's crappy, but that's how these things work.

Fortunately there ARE shorter term remedies - like minded individuals can organize transportation and raise money for costs in the meantime for those who don't have an easy travel situation and that should work fine. As long as there's a way, there's a way.
Only extreme people are actual "anti-abortion". Most everyone is okay with abortions 'in certain circumstances'.
Probably true. The opposite seems to be somewhat true as well - most people aren't 'pro-abortion' in the sense that there comes some point where they think it should be restricted. "aborting" a baby 5 mins before the mom gives birth with no medical reason or threat to her health would leave many uncomfortable.

Its' a challenging issue. We all agree that at some point between being an egg and graduating college a human comes into existance and has rights attached, but pinning down precisely where is a tough one. And that's why it does deserve a logical rational discussion and appropriate laws.

I could give a lot of hypotheticals of situations where someone wouldn't move to a state that's got strict abortion laws even if they're trying for a new job. It's not that hard to come up with. And it's obviously a big deal enough when a company with a 100 plus year history in a state is thinking of changing because the state is no longer a good fit for said company.
The only obvious 'big deal' there is they may face a political backlash.

Time will tell i suppose and it may very well turn out that in the real world it's a bigger deal for actual individuals than it appears to be based on the information availalbe. But the evidence speaks against that being likely. If it is, lawmakers and voters will have to consider that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,769
1,157
113
In the maritimes the provinces are considerably smaller so comparisons don't really fit. So she may not be the best judge of that. :)
Well fair enough i suppose.
But yes, getting into another state can be quite quick. Some states are long though so one direction may be longer than others. When I drove to SK from Toronto through the states, I was almost completely through my 4th state before I reached a point where straight north of me would not be ON.
Well i suppose the people in alaska would have reason to complain ;). Or hawaii.

But yeah - i went to north dakota, took a drive and passed through two other states just trying to turn around.