- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Of fucking course the Arizona Supreme Court – the same bunch of fuckheads who resurrected the anti-abortion law from 1864 before Arizona was even a state – did this. Hopefully Arizona voters do the right thing and give those stupid bastards on the court a metaphorical kick in the teeth this November.
It’s crazy how they only care about unborn human beings.
Once they are born it’s, “Now fuck off!!!”
Then it’s only fair to call abortion a “second opportunity” or whatever to capture what it really represents for the women who desperately need it. Idk, I’m not clever with these things, but I don’t mind playing their stupid game to give them a taste of their own medicine.
Emancipation from forced incubation?
Doesn’t entirely roll off the tongue, but…
If all fails just shlap an acronym on it. It’s now EFFI. Get your branded blue hats, folks!
Well why wouldn’t they be able to? It’s a factual term.
It doesn’t even matter if it is factual. It should still be protected speech.
Because it’s not “free speech”. It’s government sponsored speech to describe what voters are choosing, and supposed to be an impartial description of the proposal.
Inflammatory language is not impartial.
“Unborn human” seems like the right word. What else is it? Unborn cow?
A bundle of cells that might, a meaningful distance in the future after a woman’s body has been taken away from them, eventually become a human.
So unborn human isn’t far off.
It’s the exact mirror equivalent of the other side calling the fetus an “unwanted parasite”. We know, for a fact, that the framing of questions massively impacts how people vote, which is why requiring objective, neutral wording is mandatory for a democratic result.
Maybe they should just have a Republican section and a Democrat section.
Also abortion is one of those things people dig in about. Words aren’t going to change high held beliefs
