First off, people aren't being that indirect about it. They're actively worried that Casey (not Roe) will be overturned, leading to the pervasive surveillance and incarceration of pregnant women.
But of course, you don't need to make abortion a crime to reduce it:
You can be powerfully anti-abortion in your faith while not believing that making it a crime is the best way to address the problem.
Indeed, stuff like ready access to contraception, prenatal care, and financial support for parents of young children is likely MORE effective.
The question isn't about whether we should adopt policies to reduce abortion--such policies are broadly popular in even the most progressive circles.
The question is whether we should punish women who seek abortions, and doctors who provide them.
I think that, as a matter of policy, we shouldn't, because the obvious consequence of granting full personhood to the unborn is that it will justify a lot of government intervention.
Any woman drinking a glass of wine could be recklessly endangering another.
And on top of that, even with all the added surveillance, the stops by police, and the monitoring by doctors, we still can't be sure criminalization will reduce abortion.
So, in a sense, this isn't a debate between pro-life and pro-choice. It is a debate about whether we can best deter abortions through carrots or sticks.
There is nothing godless about choosing carrots.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you are ever arrested, the two biggest things you can do to help yourself:
1. Be polite and reasonable with the officer. If he responds by acting like a jerk, that just helps you more when a jury looks at the video.
2. Politely decline to answer questions.
I have seen so many cases where a cop has a borderline arrest, and a judge takes his demeanor into account. A super nice officer who chit chats with the defendant while he waits for backup wins suppression motions.
A guy who enjoys being a jerk often doesn't.
Later down the line, the officer may be asked if he's cool with the State cutting you a break, and it's so helpful to have him on board.
District Attorney Fani Willis has opened up a website to sell merch, particularly on "Fani Friday." You too can have your very own Fani T. Willis fan club t-shirt.
Georgia has passed a law forbidding bail funds from contributing to people's bonds.
It is worth noting that when MLK was bailed out of Birminghan jail, he didn't fund his own bond. The United Auto Workers, and others, pooled tens of thousands of dollars to liberate him.
This law is squarely aimed at punishing people accused of relatively minor crimes of civil disobedience, like blocking a street, or trespassing at a department store lunch counter.
Punishing people before trial is an effective way to avoid having to give them a trial.
The State's problem is not that these people are violating their bonds. Or that they are failing to appear for court. You could address that with a bench warrant.
Georgia simply does not want to give people a trial before punishing them.
Summary: Willis may have had a net financial benefit from hiring Wade, but it was small. Her repeated efforts to bring the case to trial quickly suggest no improper motive to delay. Thus, despite a "tremendous lapse in judgment" and "unprofessional" demeanor, no actual conflict.
You want to prosecute the former President of the United States. There are credit card statements showing you financially benefitted from your romantic relationship. Your only defense is completely untraceable cash reimbursements.
You swear under oath that your relationship started in 2022. Two witnesses, including Nathan Wade's former attorney, provided evidence that this was not true.
Georgia used to have a child abuse registry. You got notice that you had been placed on it, then you got a hearing in front of an ALJ. It was probably unconstitutional. The Georgia General Assembly passed a law to eliminate it.
DFCS is STILL putting people on the registry. /1
Except now, you no longer get to appear in front of a judge, or have counsel. You are required to speak, by yourself, to the DFCS worker, and explain why you think you should not be on the registry. /2
As far as I know, there is no statutory or regulatory justification for the continuation of this registry, that was eliminated by the General Assembly in 2020. /3