https://philarchive.org/archive/CUSTAM
Three Angry Men a philosophical fable by Simon Cushing
Three previously anti-abortion men discover they’re pregnant (it’s complicated). Various arguments about abortion rights are discussed, drawing on work by Judith Jarvis Thomson, David Boonin, Don Marquis, Leonard Glantz, and others.
Levin Report: Samuel Alito, Last Seen Obliterating Abortion Rights, Thinks Liberal Female Colleague Should Be Seen and Not Heard
https://link.vanityfair.com/view/617af241112b25773a0cc41bheaa5.1hiw/b2979182
Good news! But “Denny Dalliance”? Really?
Is it too late for Herschel Walker?
Denny Dalliance had long worried about what would happen if he fathered a child because his job as a truck driver keeps him away from home most of the week.
Something about this opening statement felt suspicious to me…
Dalliance, the truck driver, said he didn’t want to place the responsibility of birth control on partners anymore, especially with abortions harder to get.
Emphasis mine. Yup, name checks out.
“I don’t want to come off as though I’m like unhappy to be doing this, but this is a situation where my hand kind of got forced with regards to the Roe v. Wade decision,” he said.
“I feel like that, with the extreme cost involved with having a child in the United States, I kind of got priced out,” he said. “And so this is me cashing out my chips as it were. It’s the right ethical decision for me, but it’s not one that’s made lightly.”
All joking aside. this reads to me as “I can no longer shift the responsibility for my lack of effective birth control on to my partners, so I’m going to now do the responsible thing I should have done years ago.”
Obviously there are a lot of factors, but for his situation the math is very straightforward. I can imagine no scenario where the cost of a single vasectomy is more expensive than potentially multiple abortions or other surgical options for long-term birth control. I would argue that the only thing the Dobbs decision did for this man was to change the priority of his selfishness.
Alito and his ilk…since wanting them to die is morally wrong, I suppose I’d have to settle with dosing them with LSD and hoping their consciousnesses expand.
- Has the Supreme Court opened an investigation into any of the allegations set forth in our September 7, 2022, letter, the July 2022 letter from Reverend Robert Schenck to Chief Justice Roberts, or any other allegations contained in the relevant reporting from Rolling Stone, Politico, or the New York Times? If so, please provide relevant details regarding the management of that investigation, including which individual and/or office is leading the investigation and how and on what date the investigation was launched.
- Has the Court reevaluated any of its practices, procedures, or rules related to judicial ethics, or the justices’ receipt and reporting of gifts and travel, in light of the July 2022 letter from Reverend Robert Schenck to Chief Justice Roberts?
- Who is responsible for policing the relationship between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Historical Society to ensure that paid membership in the Society is not used as a means of gaining undue influence?
Sen Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep Hank Jonson send a letter to the Chief Justice The letter notes that
"A response pointing out the existence of rules is not responsive to questions about whether those rules were broken. "
which may be the lawmakers’ way of throwing shade.
Camping is great there! - an add-on to the above.
Even Stalin made more tasteful monuments.
Dr. Bernard’s employer, Indiana University Health, found that she did not violate HIPAA rules because the patient was not identifiable based on the information that Dr. Bernard had shared publicly.
“The cause and effect that happened here was not: ‘Dr. Bernard’s story leads to the patient having her protected information shared,’” said Alice Morical, the doctor’s attorney.
But members of the medical board, made up of six doctors and one attorney — all appointed by the governor — decided that, taken together, the details Dr. Bernard provided about the patient — including her age, her rape, her home state and her abortion — qualified as identifying information.