But it does violate due process and it does violate the second amendment, nevertheless the protection should be extended. Multiple things can be true at the same time.


Gotta love Republicans, they love their violence against women at all costs.


@1 Those who commit felonies are not allowed to possess firearms. Washington state also has a whole bunch of laws regarding who cannot possess a firearm due to crimes they have committed. Where, exactly, in the 2nd amendment does it say anything about domestic abusers having the right to own guns? Hm? (that's rhetorical, we all know it doesn't, anywhere).


@3: What felonies? This is about requesting and serving restraining order requests. No felonies going on.

2nd amendment? Well the beauty of our constitution is that it doesn't have to detail litigation considerations for every possible tangential attack on its amendments. That's why we have the courts. So the armchair retort "where does it say in the constitution?" has always been weak.


Let's hope that -- even with complicit Repticilans having their Foul say -- there'll be a LOTTA Stockholm Syndrome survivors, post-Pandemically, fleeing 'right' wing Freedom Fighters for FOX n' Fiends.

The pent-up are gonna have an excess of testosterone, coupled with an already oversize arsenal and may likely pose a domestic terrorism threat. A nasty, touchy situation worsened exponentially by a fake 'president' man-child, reality teevee 'star' six-times Bankrupt -- half a billion dollar heir! -- a pathologically narcissist with a sympathetic Supreme Court, a power-blinded lock-stepping Senate, an 'attorney general' slavishly devoted to ensure The Boss sticks around long enough to place his fascist ass on The Court.

Oh, and access to Nukes.
Thnx, repubs.

So I'm saying let's
keep en eye on this
Shite, Governor Jay.

You da man with
the Bully Pulpit.

@2 -- where's the
Well Regulated part come on?

Storming the Capitol
bearing WMDs?

Is that what they meant?


Call a special session, Jay. You have majorities in the House and the Senate. Stick it right up their asses. Show them who's boss in this state. Call them a pack of cowards and wife beaters, Let Tim Eyman and Clit Diddler scream and holler.


@4 refer to Washington State law. Again, why the need to defend the most despicable? FFS.
The constant citing of the 2nd Amendment by those who don't understand it AT ALL to defend their obsession with murder weapons is not just weak it is boring and old and tired and fucking stupid, but hey, you do you.


Mike Schloeser is a typical fat, white, corrupt, rape-minded RepubliKKKan incel whose insecurities are hidden under a toupee and a mustache misrepresenting the unfortunate 9th District, covering 6 counties in (no surprise) Eastern and Southeastern Washington, where women are generally considered farm animals.
@2 xina: I know, right? At least I was able to flee an abusive spouse and haven't looked back. I still have my pink pussy hat and am ready to wear a "I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO KEEP DOING THIS t-shirt at the next women's march.
@5 kristofarian: WMDs are indeed, the very penises of RepubliKKKan males and their equally sick enablers.
@6: gripe: Agreed and seconded!


Weird how gun humpers always seem to gloss over that whole "well-regulated" part of 2A.


@7: "Again, why the need to defend the most despicable? FFS."

Because Lady Justice is blindfolded and is oblivious the character defects of the plaintiff and defendant.


@10- an Extreme Risk Protection order is not about who's a bad person or not. It's about whether a given person's conduct is creating a danger. And as a former public defender, I can without reservation say that the clients who a) scared me the most, both personally and in terms of what they seemed like they were willing to do, and b) were the most adamant about holding onto their guns were the ones who were beating up their wives & girlfriends.

As to the emergency proclamation, it mainly waives certain time limits for the hearing on a permanent restraining order and allows serve on the respondent and the hearing to be done other than in-person (for example, by telephone hearing). I fail to see the due process issue with that.


@1 Until there has been an explicit ruling by a federal court overturning this policy on the basis of 2nd amendment jurisprudence, any "violation" is entirely hypothetical.


Thank you!
Individual liberty doesn't imply an individual's right to harm another citizen.


But doesn't their sense of Entitlement REQUIRE them the freedom to fuck up other people, if they have 'good reason'?

Oh and 5(b) was for @1 not 2.


The sh*t they pull.


Too many Refuse to distinguish twixt a fetus and a Actual Baby
that's why they Believe ULTIMATE PROTECTION begins at Conception

and ENDS at Birth.

Post partum, them Freeloaders is all on their own.

The "pro" Life team is NOT.

More abortion doctor Executions?
Oh, and more Death Penalty
Executions to go along with?


Cons believe fetuses are citizens and black people are not.


Bingo, xina.

Former Slaves?
2/3 Citizens so


and ten

They do Love their
"strong" trumpfy type Daddys.

That's some weird
fucked up fully
Fascist Shite.


Republicans are horrible people.


@Catalina -- yeah
on a good day.


For the non-Christian, it does seem hypocritical that anti-abortion/contraception pro-life sentiment is not extended to being empathic for the sick, suffering, and dying after birth.

The comparison isn't applicable. A fetus prevented from being born into the world is also prevented from accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and from having an everlasting life.

In other words, anti-abortion is not solely about not being born into a mortal life, it's also about not entering the kingdom of heaven to reside in ultimate joy with God's grace forever and ever.


I am for choice, nevertheless that's how I interpret the evangelical perspective.


@22 - Not invalid, but I wonder how many of them pause long enough to develop an religio-intellectual basis for their beliefs. I think the vast majority simply adopt pro-life because "Pastor says..." or "Rush says..." or "Fox & Friends say..."


Women just need to start shootings their husbands. Republicans won’t know what to do. I’m guessing the men’s rights republicans outnumber the stand your ground ones.


@22 - I had not hear that before. Interesting perspective. But what about a year-old baby, or even a two- or three-year-old who is dying because the pro-life party denied him/her medical care? Surely a pre-verbal child can't have made a decision to accept Jesus (or any other religion), either? Of a severely developmentally delayed person who is not capable of understanding what religion even is? Seems like they would be stretching pretty hard to draw a bright line at birth.


@6 FTW. The Repubs are fucking up the country left and right. The Dems need to be on the offensive now.


@26: There will never be satisfactory answers to those questions for non-believers. I have no idea myself, perhaps it's along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways" and the child would have opportunities for redemption. But it really doesn't matter. Logic takes a back seat to faith. In Hollywood, they call it the 'creative suspension of belief'. Christians are well suited for dealing with ambiguity.


It's also hypocritical to believing Christians.
The very concept of following the teachings of Christ underscores compassion for all humans, whether they happen to believe in Christ or not.
The parable of the Good Samaritan- an outcast to orthodox Jews - who is held up as an example of compassion is one example.
And the 2nd half of Matthew 25 - you know, "whatsoever you did to the least of my brothers, you did to me" - was a mandate for a compassionate response to suffering.


@29: Good points.


My position is well-known: Abort early (or later) and abort often. When in doubt, cut it out. You can always have another - and if you can't, then it's God's will.

But abortion should always be the first option.....


"... it's also about not entering the kingdom of heaven to reside in ultimate joy with God's grace forever and ever."

Well then they can be like the damn Mormons and baptize their "babies," babies, miscarriages and every precious (wasted!) sperm in the Present or after the fact, if need be, but to Dictate what other must Believe and DO is NOT the freedom FROM Religion promised the Citizenry in our Constitution.

Don't want there to be Abortions?
Don't fucking HAVE one.

'Outlawing' them only hurts the women forced by a Minority's belief to bear a fetus to term who nevertheless gotta leave the state or take a chance with the local illegal abortionist leaving how many women dead or maimed?

Too fucking many.

It's all about them
imposing their beliefs
on the fucking Rest of us.


@31: My goodness. It almost sounds that you'd like women to get American Express rewards points or 1000 frequent Alaska flyer miles for every abortion.


@28 - Your position raises an interesting question. Does a fetus that is miscarried at, say, 6 months get to go to heaven? If so, then what is different about one that is aborted?

If there IS a difference, and the miscarried fetus goes to heaven while the aborted one is denied, the implication is that an act of man (the abortion) can somehow thwart the will of God and divert the baby from its heavenly destination. That seems incompatible with omnipotence.

On the other hand, if a miscarried fetus misses out on going to heaven anyway, then what difference would the abortion make? That is, what is the theological difference between someone who has an abortion vs. someone who, say, smokes or hits the meth pipe and causes a miscarriage?


Looks like our 404 Trolls are back...



The term you're looking for is the "willing suspension of disbelief", the concept that, while watching actors perform on-stage or on-screen the audience intentionally avoids critical thinking or logic in examining something surreal, such as a work of speculative fiction, in order to believe it for the sake of enjoyment. So, I guess in that sense you're right, because for theists to believe what they do requires them to embrace the notion that something they cannot see, hear, feel or experience in any cogent manner nevertheless must exist - even and despite all lack of evidence; what Plato posited as "ideal forms" and Kant's later "noumena". For them it's all just "faith", namely, belief based on nothing more than someone saying a thing is so, because I have yet to meet a single believer who can definitively assert that they have actually personally spoken to their God, as in an actual back-and-forth conversation.



And furthermore, how can anyone alive KNOW what happens to them? Nobody has actually ever been to Heaven - or Hell for that matter - and come back to give a report on conditions there. It's all the wildest form of pure speculation born out of the fetid imaginations of long-dead believers who had little empirical understanding of their own world and existence, let alone those "beyond the pale". Plus, it was all basically a carrot for the great illiterate, unwashed masses, "well sure, your life HERE is one short, brutal slog (!) of toil, disease, oppression, and deprivation - but just you wait! If you endure all that without raising any complaints (or more importantly raising your torches and pitchforks against those who hold earthly dominion over you!) WE GUARANTEE an eternal afterlife of harps, ambrosia and gentle foot massages performed by cute, fat little baby angels! So, c'mon - what have you got to lose?"


@37 -- by Gawd, there's Bingo

Sell the Slaves on the Afterlife*
and they'll work for FREE in this one.

Brilliant. Plus
Big Religion is

*can You PROVE
there isN'T One?

Good Luck!


That's a wonderful idea, Raindrop dear. Anything that can reward people for not becoming parents unless they are absolutely sure they want to be, and ready to do so financially. Maybe there could be like a punch card? Get ten abortions, and your 11th one is free!


The Washington state GOP is sacrificing older people to corporate profits, and women and kids to the NRA. This, to the right-wind mind, is "freedom".


@25: It would be comparable to what happened in California in 1967-the Black Panthers showed up at the state capitol openly carrying weapons(something they had the legal right to do at the time) and, having seen this, a Republican state legislature immediately passed the state's first gun control law, which was signed by...a first-term GOP governor named Ronald Reagan.


@41-I keep thinking that might be the answer here too. Nice counterpoint to Vanilla Isis bitching about their haircuts and bowling alleys.


@31 Catalina Vel-DuRay and @32 kristofarian:: Spot on, agreed and seconded.

@33: So, by your thinking, Rainy, I and other women like me, should all get a free American Express Platinum card for not ever once bearing a child? It's nice to know that during my one toxic marriage battling my ass off to remain childless by my choice--literally---against my abusive spouse, his family members, equally clueless friends, and meddling elders (i.e.: yentas, gossips, etc.) during my reproductive years---has finally paid off.
And now Griz is entering a lovely new timely world of Men-o-Pause (they call it that for a reason, baby). Whee! I just knew that opposing and avoiding RepubliKKKans has always been in my best interests. Choke on it, MAGAs.


Republicans have always liked beating up women.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.