THREAD: This is the most important abortion related case in years. We are long overdue for the SCOTUS to revisit Roe v. Wade & PP v. Casey—cases that have led to the death of over 60 million innocent children & led many women & men to lifelong regret. cnbc.com/2021/05/17/sup…
The Supreme Court must acknowledge what science has long revealed: that a unique and individual human life begins at the moment of fertilization. They must recognize that the arbitrary line of viability is an ever changing goalpost as science and technology advance,
and a child’s ability to survive outside the womb should not determine his or her humanity or right to not be murdered in a violent abortion. Every child, including a baby ‘pre-viability” should be protected from the horrors of abortion and the abortion industry.
A 15 week old baby has a face, fingernails, eyelashes, a heartbeat and brainwaves. The Supreme Court should grant equal protection under the law to all humans, even from the very beginning of every human’s life.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Amy Coney Barrett is a brilliant lawyer, academic, jurist, and mother of 7 children.
I’ve already seen dozens of comments from “progressive" reporters and leaders attacking her faith, calling her a “handmaid,” questioning her adopted children, and even wondering how she...
...could possibly be a successful justice because she has 7 children.
When Barrett was going through nomination hearings for her position as a federal judge 3 years ago, my own Senator @SenFeinstein grilled her on her faith & said,
“The dogma lives loudly within you.”
She went on to explain that she found Barrett “controversial” because "women really recognize the value of finally being able to control our reproductive systems”
She is, of course, referring to abortion & Roe v Wade
That is her concern: Would Barrett want to undo Roe?
It’s crucial to understand forced sterilization in its historical and present-day context as a population control weapon, wielded by the powerful against the vulnerable. Low-income and minority women bear the brunt of this assault on human rights. Some things to know:
.@PPFA's founder, Margaret Sanger, advocated for forced sterilizations of the “unfit” — minority, low income, and disadvantaged women and girls.
Sanger wrote in her Birth Control Review that parents should “apply for babies as immigrants have to apply for visas.”
Planned Parenthood’s @PPFA advocacy for forced sterilization led to the decades-long practice of these brutal human rights violationsin the United States. In as late as 1968, North Carolina’s forcibly sterilized Black 14-year-old rape survivor Elaine Riddick.
Chomsky's (& George’s) premise is false. The options are not either Fascism or speech without rules. It’s clear that we already place very strict limits on some forms of speech. Sedition, false alarms, defamation. We have those limits and do not live in a Stalinist legal regime.
Any society that still has its sense recognizes that certain kinds of speech war against the good. Just like defamation and false alarms, arguing for the sexual exploitation of a child – or the murder of a child — should be strictly off limits.
It might boost the abortion industry's ego, but the harm it will inflict on women & children is par for the course from a movement that views women & children as the collateral damage of furthering its agenda.
For those claiming that the filmmakers did “nothing illegal,” the law & case law is crystal clear here. The filmmakers & Netflix have violated Title 18, section 2256. The Fifth Circuit created the “Dost test,” a 6-factor test to determine if images are child porn. Here they are:
1. Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitalia or pubic area;
2. Whether the setting of the depiction is sexually suggestive, that is, in a place or pose associated with sexual activity;
3. Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child;
4. Wether the child is fully or partially nude;
5. Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity; or