Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   R v. W is officially on the table, folks. Vote if you don't want your bodies controlled by SCOTUS, women   (bbc.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Supreme Court of the United States, Roe v. Wade, President Donald Trump, Supreme Court pick, Mr Trump, Amy Coney Barrett, fear Judge Barrett, abortion rights  
•       •       •

2597 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Sep 2020 at 7:19 AM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



225 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-28 9:24:01 PM  
I heard an ad on the radio today about voices being silenced from voting and it was an anti-abortion ad.
 
2020-09-28 9:46:08 PM  
So, there are no cases pending that could overturn Roe v. Wade, nor are there cases that the Court is even expected to grant cert on, the President hasn't indicated that's the case, just his usual blustering of how he picks only the very best (who then promptly make court rulings in ways he doesn't like), and he touts ACB's originalist views while either ignoring (or more likely not knowing) that the originalists are the ones who are really not too keen on overturning precedent and landmark decisions absent an extraordinary, steady culture shift in the nation and states legal systems away from what that precedent stands for.

Ok.
 
2020-09-28 9:54:41 PM  
imo the real concern is us returning closer to the original holding in Roe, as that allows the conservatives greater ability to place restrictions on abortions. It's the post-Roe holdings that I'm worried about going away.
 
2020-09-28 10:33:13 PM  
Headline is missing a comma.
 
2020-09-28 10:36:08 PM  

dodecahedron: Headline is missing a comma.


And a period.

Not being snarky or grammar nazi. It's not SCOTUS women who will be taking rights away. It will be SCOTUS conservatives.
 
2020-09-28 10:48:27 PM  

KangTheMad: So, there are no cases pending that could overturn Roe v. Wade, nor are there cases that the Court is even expected to grant cert on, the President hasn't indicated that's the case, just his usual blustering of how he picks only the very best (who then promptly make court rulings in ways he doesn't like), and he touts ACB's originalist views while either ignoring (or more likely not knowing) that the originalists are the ones who are really not too keen on overturning precedent and landmark decisions absent an extraordinary, steady culture shift in the nation and states legal systems away from what that precedent stands for.

Ok.


Give it a few months. Moneyed religious and/or conservative groups will make a case. If they have to piggyback off some other case like they did in Janus v AFSCME, so be it.

Mark my words. There will be a case on abortion in the near future. This is their holy grail.
 
2020-09-28 10:55:55 PM  

Alley Rat: KangTheMad: So, there are no cases pending that could overturn Roe v. Wade, nor are there cases that the Court is even expected to grant cert on, the President hasn't indicated that's the case, just his usual blustering of how he picks only the very best (who then promptly make court rulings in ways he doesn't like), and he touts ACB's originalist views while either ignoring (or more likely not knowing) that the originalists are the ones who are really not too keen on overturning precedent and landmark decisions absent an extraordinary, steady culture shift in the nation and states legal systems away from what that precedent stands for.

Ok.

Give it a few months. Moneyed religious and/or conservative groups will make a case. If they have to piggyback off some other case like they did in Janus v AFSCME, so be it.

Mark my words. There will be a case on abortion in the near future. This is their holy grail.


It's far easier and more practical for those groups to convince the Court that they can revisit how states should be allowed to restrict an existing right rather than convincing the Court to completely do away with an already existing right.
 
2020-09-28 11:09:10 PM  

dodecahedron: dodecahedron: Headline is missing a comma.

And a period.

Not being snarky or grammar nazi. It's not SCOTUS women who will be taking rights away. It will be SCOTUS conservatives.


Oh. Ok then.
 
2020-09-28 11:12:50 PM  
If an abortion challenge comes to the Court, I'm guessing it will be similar to the Gonzales/Hellerstedt/June Medical line of cases. Interests groups will seek to put in place significant, pre-viability obstacles to the accessibility of abortion that aren't patently absurd like the surgical room or admission privileges.

It will be either to find a clever way around that line of cases by having the Court uphold a significant obstacle, or outright rolling them back and returning to a Roe-style freedom to restrict founded purely on an arbitrary, trimester-based framework rather than after the point of viability. Roe would give the Court the rationale to support trimester-based restrictions rather than post-viability restrictions.

Overturning precedent, especially landmark precedent granting specific rights, is a huge huge deal for the Court to do. And I don't mean a huge deal for us (though it is), I mean a huge deal for the Justices themselves to actually go forward with. While the Court does what the Court wants to do, they need to rationalize it based on balancing certain, accepted criteria against the even longer accepted and very controlling doctrine of stare decisis. Unfortunately for the interest groups, that criteria (culture/legal doctrine shift mentioned earlier) really isn't met. So the approach would be to "how do we get the Court to allow us to most broadly restrict abortion?"
 
2020-09-28 11:31:22 PM  

KangTheMad: Overturning precedent, especially landmark precedent granting specific rights, is a huge huge deal for the Court to do. And I don't mean a huge deal for us (though it is), I mean a huge deal for the Justices themselves to actually go forward with. While the Court does what the Court wants to do, they need to rationalize it based on balancing certain, accepted criteria against the even longer accepted and very controlling doctrine of stare decisis. Unfortunately for the interest groups, that criteria (culture/legal doctrine shift mentioned earlier) really isn't met. So the approach would be to "how do we get the Court to allow us to most broadly restrict abortion?"


You give religious conservatives way too much credit. They dont give a shiat about precedence when souls are on the line. This is holy war!
 
2020-09-28 11:38:48 PM  

Frederick: KangTheMad: Overturning precedent, especially landmark precedent granting specific rights, is a huge huge deal for the Court to do. And I don't mean a huge deal for us (though it is), I mean a huge deal for the Justices themselves to actually go forward with. While the Court does what the Court wants to do, they need to rationalize it based on balancing certain, accepted criteria against the even longer accepted and very controlling doctrine of stare decisis. Unfortunately for the interest groups, that criteria (culture/legal doctrine shift mentioned earlier) really isn't met. So the approach would be to "how do we get the Court to allow us to most broadly restrict abortion?"

You give religious conservatives way too much credit. They dont give a shiat about precedence when souls are on the line. This is holy war!


I give credit to the highly experienced, Constitutional Law scholar, tactician lawyers whose job it is to take a case to SCOTUS and get a successful result. They're the smart ones. They're the ones that give a sh*t about precedence because SCOTUS gives many sh*ts about precedence.
 
2020-09-28 11:42:52 PM  
They're going to go "look, the reality is, Interest Group, you have almost no chance of overturning Roe. You're much better off trying to get the Court to uphold restrictions. The Court has put this rule in place regarding restrictions. The Court has held that x y and z reasons are insufficient for restricting abortion. Find a way to restrict access to abortion, without going over the top or having your reasons be negligibly, at best, related to safety. Then we'll talk about taking it to SCOTUS."
 
2020-09-29 3:02:17 AM  

KangTheMad: So, there are no cases pending that could overturn Roe v. Wade, nor are there cases that the Court is even expected to grant cert on, the President hasn't indicated that's the case, just his usual blustering of how he picks only the very best (who then promptly make court rulings in ways he doesn't like), and he touts ACB's originalist views while either ignoring (or more likely not knowing) that the originalists are the ones who are really not too keen on overturning precedent and landmark decisions absent an extraordinary, steady culture shift in the nation and states legal systems away from what that precedent stands for.

Ok.


ALEC has a raft of suits ready to go, you sweet blessed soul.
 
2020-09-29 7:18:07 AM  
I definitely don't want my body controlled by scrotus women
 
2020-09-29 7:21:05 AM  

KangTheMad: Frederick: KangTheMad: Overturning precedent, especially landmark precedent granting specific rights, is a huge huge deal for the Court to do. And I don't mean a huge deal for us (though it is), I mean a huge deal for the Justices themselves to actually go forward with. While the Court does what the Court wants to do, they need to rationalize it based on balancing certain, accepted criteria against the even longer accepted and very controlling doctrine of stare decisis. Unfortunately for the interest groups, that criteria (culture/legal doctrine shift mentioned earlier) really isn't met. So the approach would be to "how do we get the Court to allow us to most broadly restrict abortion?"

You give religious conservatives way too much credit. They dont give a shiat about precedence when souls are on the line. This is holy war!

I give credit to the highly experienced, Constitutional Law scholar, tactician lawyers whose job it is to take a case to SCOTUS and get a successful result. They're the smart ones. They're the ones that give a sh*t about precedence because SCOTUS gives many sh*ts about precedence.


The nominee has specifically and explicitly expressed her disdain for those precedents
 
2020-09-29 7:23:41 AM  
I'm still just not inspired.
 
2020-09-29 7:24:13 AM  
Also TBH that ship sailed. The time to prevent this by voting was back in 2016, when literally this exact scenario was foreseen by a large number of people ("don't talk about the Court, that's just fearmongering"). All that can be done now is mitigation.
 
2020-09-29 7:24:41 AM  
I was told there would be SCROTUM women.
 
2020-09-29 7:24:53 AM  
Christians are the worlds most wretched people. All religions are bad, but christianitiy seems to revel in being awful.
 
2020-09-29 7:25:27 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-29 7:25:45 AM  
"Trump says..."
 
2020-09-29 7:26:34 AM  
I'm not fully on board.  Barrett has woven through Roe v Wade and said you won't change the core of it but it's not an untouchable decision like a Brown v Board.
She's more interested in who pays for women's health, or more specifically, who has the choice to not pay for it.

You can look underneath that and say she's an antiabortion religious wacko, it could be true.  But I think she'll hide that in her rulings under other more arguable flaws.
 
2020-09-29 7:28:20 AM  
Get a vasectomy, fellas. There are plenty of kids to adopt if you ever want to be a parent, and it'll take some power away from the fundie CHUDs.
 
2020-09-29 7:28:47 AM  

KangTheMad: Frederick: KangTheMad: Overturning precedent, especially landmark precedent granting specific rights, is a huge huge deal for the Court to do. And I don't mean a huge deal for us (though it is), I mean a huge deal for the Justices themselves to actually go forward with. While the Court does what the Court wants to do, they need to rationalize it based on balancing certain, accepted criteria against the even longer accepted and very controlling doctrine of stare decisis. Unfortunately for the interest groups, that criteria (culture/legal doctrine shift mentioned earlier) really isn't met. So the approach would be to "how do we get the Court to allow us to most broadly restrict abortion?"

You give religious conservatives way too much credit. They dont give a shiat about precedence when souls are on the line. This is holy war!

I give credit to the highly experienced, Constitutional Law scholar, tactician lawyers whose job it is to take a case to SCOTUS and get a successful result. They're the smart ones. They're the ones that give a sh*t about precedence because SCOTUS gives many sh*ts about precedence.


She doesn't hold stare decisis in high regard. She couldn't care less about previous decisions.
 
2020-09-29 7:29:21 AM  

qorkfiend: Also TBH that ship sailed. The time to prevent this by voting was back in 2016, when literally this exact scenario was foreseen by a large number of people ("don't talk about the Court, that's just fearmongering"). All that can be done now is mitigation.


But her emails.
 
2020-09-29 7:29:52 AM  

chewd: Christians are the worlds most wretched people. All religions are bad, but christianitiy seems to revel in being awful.


Have you been to Afghanistan?  Iran?  shiatty religion there too.
 
2020-09-29 7:31:43 AM  

KangTheMad: Alley Rat: KangTheMad: So, there are no cases pending that could overturn Roe v. Wade, nor are there cases that the Court is even expected to grant cert on, the President hasn't indicated that's the case, just his usual blustering of how he picks only the very best (who then promptly make court rulings in ways he doesn't like), and he touts ACB's originalist views while either ignoring (or more likely not knowing) that the originalists are the ones who are really not too keen on overturning precedent and landmark decisions absent an extraordinary, steady culture shift in the nation and states legal systems away from what that precedent stands for.

Ok.

Give it a few months. Moneyed religious and/or conservative groups will make a case. If they have to piggyback off some other case like they did in Janus v AFSCME, so be it.

Mark my words. There will be a case on abortion in the near future. This is their holy grail.

It's far easier and more practical for those groups to convince the Court that they can revisit how states should be allowed to restrict an existing right rather than convincing the Court to completely do away with an already existing right.


Sure, but they have 10+ years to keep chipping away.  And they'll do just that.  Each case will present an additional limitation on abortion rights until there's nothing left.  They don't necessarily need a direct overturning of Roe to get nearly everything they want.  But access to safe and effective birth control in general will plummet, medical procedures will be criminalized, etc.  The fight isn't the next case or the one after that or the one after that - it's all of them.  If you support a right to abortion - or at least respect the sanctity of an individual having control over their reproductive life and body, brook no quarter.  Every case must be opposed as if it's THE case.  Again and again and again.  It will never stop.
 
2020-09-29 7:32:01 AM  

KangTheMad: So, there are no cases pending that could overturn Roe v. Wade, nor are there cases that the Court is even expected to grant cert on, the President hasn't indicated that's the case, just his usual blustering of how he picks only the very best (who then promptly make court rulings in ways he doesn't like), and he touts ACB's originalist views while either ignoring (or more likely not knowing) that the originalists are the ones who are really not too keen on overturning precedent and landmark decisions absent an extraordinary, steady culture shift in the nation and states legal systems away from what that precedent stands for.

Ok.


You really haven't been paying attention for the past few years, have you?
 
2020-09-29 7:37:20 AM  

chewd: Christians are the worlds most wretched people. All religions are bad, but christianitiy seems to revel in being awful.


vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size

My friend just asked you if you've heard the Good News yet.
 
2020-09-29 7:37:30 AM  
What difference does it make at this point? It's constantly challenged, new laws are make everyday to shut clinics down and restrict women's rights, and politics have clearly drawn a line in the sand saying "science is anti-religion and all women needing abortions are whores who can't close their legs". Now we have businesses being able to dictate what someone can buy with their insurance. R v W has been under attack for decades and has become a partisan issue because the republicans want that sweet sweet evangelical vote. Millions of women have been forced to get illegal abortions, pay thousands of dollars to travel to an abortion clinic and have been forced to have babies they can't support while the father gets off scott free. Thousands of children are passed around foster care because the government doesn't care what happens after they are born.

As monumental as RvW was, it's been pecked to death by vultures ever since, and at this point it's only a corpse of what it was supposed to be.
 
2020-09-29 7:38:55 AM  
What the...

*clicks tfa sees that Trump said it*

Oh, never mind.

/but yeah, they're going to certainly try
 
2020-09-29 7:39:10 AM  
Nana's Vibrator:

You can look underneath that and say she's an antiabortion religious wacko, it could be true.

The woman thinks the 13th and 14th amendments are unconstitutional, and you think the religious fundamentalist whose cult inspired the Handmaiden's Tale will support Roe v Wade if a challenge gets to the court?
 
2020-09-29 7:39:47 AM  
A little late for that, subs..

/The next 20 years are going to suck
 
2020-09-29 7:39:49 AM  

bborchar: What difference does it make at this point? It's constantly challenged, new laws are make everyday to shut clinics down and restrict women's rights, and politics have clearly drawn a line in the sand saying "science is anti-religion and all women needing abortions are whores who can't close their legs". Now we have businesses being able to dictate what someone can buy with their insurance. R v W has been under attack for decades and has become a partisan issue because the republicans want that sweet sweet evangelical vote. Millions of women have been forced to get illegal abortions, pay thousands of dollars to travel to an abortion clinic and have been forced to have babies they can't support while the father gets off scott free. Thousands of children are passed around foster care because the government doesn't care what happens after they are born.

As monumental as RvW was, it's been pecked to death by vultures ever since, and at this point it's only a corpse of what it was supposed to be.


Yeah, you're right. Better to just get rid of the protections that still exist than try and fix anything.
 
2020-09-29 7:44:10 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: KangTheMad: So, there are no cases pending that could overturn Roe v. Wade, nor are there cases that the Court is even expected to grant cert on, the President hasn't indicated that's the case, just his usual blustering of how he picks only the very best (who then promptly make court rulings in ways he doesn't like), and he touts ACB's originalist views while either ignoring (or more likely not knowing) that the originalists are the ones who are really not too keen on overturning precedent and landmark decisions absent an extraordinary, steady culture shift in the nation and states legal systems away from what that precedent stands for.

Ok.

ALEC has a raft of suits ready to go, you sweet blessed soul.


Out of curiosity, how would someone create a lawsuit to make abortions more restrictive?

To me, it sounds like people would just stop filing cases in an attempt to open things up so you don't cause for to get overturned.  Unfortunately that allows states to go hog wild with restrictions because no one wants to test it and risk the overturn
 
2020-09-29 7:47:32 AM  
I've never understood the whole conservative viewpoint on abortion.

They want that unborn child born, but then promptly don't give a damn about it.  Their 'out' is that if the child is going to live in a home where it wasn't planned for, or wanted yet, it should have been given up for adoption.

Umm, yeah, I'm not a woman, but I can imagine if you carry a child for 9 months, deliver it, you are going to have a hard time giving it up for adoption at that point.  So, there goes any plans you had in your life if you weren't ready.

Then this child, who again, wasn't planned for, or wanted yet, grows up in an environment that has been stacked against it.

And this is a good thing?

People have studied single parent households and found that the children do worse than average for educational attainment.  So, one could posit that children who were born because abortion was not available would fall into this category.

"Adolescents from single-parent families and cohabiting families are more likely to have low achievement scores, lower expectations for college, lower grades, and higher dropout rates than children from intact biological families (after controlling for other family socioeconomic factors)."

I am not a religious person, but this whole argument is a punitive measure wrapped in the robes of religion.

We all know that when abortion is illegal, those with the means will still obtain them, whereas the poor and disadvantaged will not, thus leading to a cycle of poverty / low achievement.

Which does line up with GOP goals of us vs them and class stratification.
 
2020-09-29 7:47:37 AM  

KangTheMad: So, there are no cases pending that could overturn Roe v. Wade, nor are there cases that the Court is even expected to grant cert on, the President hasn't indicated that's the case, just his usual blustering of how he picks only the very best (who then promptly make court rulings in ways he doesn't like), and he touts ACB's originalist views while either ignoring (or more likely not knowing) that the originalists are the ones who are really not too keen on overturning precedent and landmark decisions absent an extraordinary, steady culture shift in the nation and states legal systems away from what that precedent stands for.

Ok.


There may be no cases pending, but as soon as she's confirmed, a state like Arkansas is going to pass a law that pretty much bans abortion, and it will move through the judiciary very fast. I give it a year.
 
2020-09-29 7:48:11 AM  
Joni Ernst has helpfully said that she does not believe that a case will go in front of the Supreme Court seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade and as such no one should see a vote from her for ACB as potentially impacting abortion.

Please note Ernst herself petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade just this year.
 
2020-09-29 7:48:19 AM  

Murkanen: Nana's Vibrator:

You can look underneath that and say she's an antiabortion religious wacko, it could be true.

The woman thinks the 13th and 14th amendments are unconstitutional, and you think the religious fundamentalist whose cult inspired the Handmaiden's Tale will support Roe v Wade if a challenge gets to the court?


Well, yes, but only because of her words.  In spite of her nomination coming from a compulsive liar, I'd like to think a person up for the highest court wouldn't be some deceptive politician on behalf of her religion.
 
2020-09-29 7:48:35 AM  
I really wish the proof positive of trump paying for, or forcing women to get abortions, would come to light. It wouldn't change anything I'm sure but add it to the pile for future historians to point at and write books about.
 
2020-09-29 7:51:27 AM  
Mandatory abortions for all unless you can properly program the clock on a VCR.
 
2020-09-29 7:53:18 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: I'd like to think a person up for the highest court wouldn't be some deceptive politician on behalf of her religion.


LOL Perish the thought.
 
2020-09-29 7:54:21 AM  
Sure, but Hillary^WBiden didn't promise to pay off the loans of all those white middle-class kids going to college. Massive regressions in women's healthcare are a small price to pay for sticking it to the DNC who forced all of those people to vote for a candidate in the primaries.

Same for all those Iraqis/Afghanis who died last decade. That'll teach them for not crowning Ralph Nader.
 
2020-09-29 7:55:41 AM  

0MGWTFBBQ: I've never understood the whole conservative viewpoint on abortion.

They want that unborn child born, but then promptly don't give a damn about it.  Their 'out' is that if the child is going to live in a home where it wasn't planned for, or wanted yet, it should have been given up for adoption.

Umm, yeah, I'm not a woman, but I can imagine if you carry a child for 9 months, deliver it, you are going to have a hard time giving it up for adoption at that point.  So, there goes any plans you had in your life if you weren't ready.

Then this child, who again, wasn't planned for, or wanted yet, grows up in an environment that has been stacked against it.

And this is a good thing?

People have studied single parent households and found that the children do worse than average for educational attainment.  So, one could posit that children who were born because abortion was not available would fall into this category.

"Adolescents from single-parent families and cohabiting families are more likely to have low achievement scores, lower expectations for college, lower grades, and higher dropout rates than children from intact biological families (after controlling for other family socioeconomic factors)."

I am not a religious person, but this whole argument is a punitive measure wrapped in the robes of religion.

We all know that when abortion is illegal, those with the means will still obtain them, whereas the poor and disadvantaged will not, thus leading to a cycle of poverty / low achievement.

Which does line up with GOP goals of us vs them and class stratification.


Punish women. That's a two word answer for you.

Notice there are no serious laws against abandonment of children by fathers? That's not part of their platform at all. It's all about punishing women.
 
2020-09-29 7:56:14 AM  
They never discussed Roe v. Wade. Right. Cohen said orders like that were never discussed, just alluded to and understood. First thing I thought of when I read this was...
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-29 7:56:44 AM  

Murkanen: ...whose cult inspired the Handmaiden's Tale...


Also, since it was mentioned, from Snopes:

Mostly False

What's True
Amy Coney Barrett, U.S. President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, is affiliated with People of Praise, a charismatic Christian group. The group's practices reportedly include calling female members' advisers "handmaids" and giving men authority over their families, both themes that are employed in "The Handmaid's Tale."

What's False
Margaret Atwood, author of "The Handmaid's Tale," has not explicitly cited People of Praise as an inspiration for the book, though she has more than once cited a similar religious sect that calls female members "handmaids." Despite contradictory statements from Atwood suggesting uncertainty on her part, we found no evidence that People of Praise, specifically, served as the inspiration for the book.

/The nomination is bullsh*t, her religion is bullsh*t, I'm fully on board with both of those views.
 
2020-09-29 7:57:09 AM  

KangTheMad: Alley Rat: KangTheMad: So, there are no cases pending that could overturn Roe v. Wade, nor are there cases that the Court is even expected to grant cert on, the President hasn't indicated that's the case, just his usual blustering of how he picks only the very best (who then promptly make court rulings in ways he doesn't like), and he touts ACB's originalist views while either ignoring (or more likely not knowing) that the originalists are the ones who are really not too keen on overturning precedent and landmark decisions absent an extraordinary, steady culture shift in the nation and states legal systems away from what that precedent stands for.

Ok.

Give it a few months. Moneyed religious and/or conservative groups will make a case. If they have to piggyback off some other case like they did in Janus v AFSCME, so be it.

Mark my words. There will be a case on abortion in the near future. This is their holy grail.

It's far easier and more practical for those groups to convince the Court that they can revisit how states should be allowed to restrict an existing right rather than convincing the Court to completely do away with an already existing right.


That's what they've done with my marriage and so-called religious freedom, including in health care. Yes, you can be a doctor and refuse to treat f-gots because of Jesus.
Welcome to the real world suburban women.
Enjoy the results of your shiat choice by not voting or voting for Trump in 2016.
 
2020-09-29 7:58:07 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: Murkanen: ...whose cult inspired the Handmaiden's Tale...

Also, since it was mentioned, from Snopes:

Mostly False

What's True
Amy Coney Barrett, U.S. President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, is affiliated with People of Praise, a charismatic Christian group. The group's practices reportedly include calling female members' advisers "handmaids" and giving men authority over their families, both themes that are employed in "The Handmaid's Tale."

What's False
Margaret Atwood, author of "The Handmaid's Tale," has not explicitly cited People of Praise as an inspiration for the book, though she has more than once cited a similar religious sect that calls female members "handmaids." Despite contradictory statements from Atwood suggesting uncertainty on her part, we found no evidence that People of Praise, specifically, served as the inspiration for the book.

/The nomination is bullsh*t, her religion is bullsh*t, I'm fully on board with both of those views.


I think I read somewhere that the book came out a year before the "religion" started. So, the book may have inspired the religion and not the reverse.
 
2020-09-29 7:59:53 AM  

cretinbob: I heard an ad on the radio today about voices being silenced from voting and it was an anti-abortion ad.


next time these stupid farks say something like fetuses voices being silenced, remind them that 200,000 other voices have been silenced.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-29 8:03:00 AM  

holdmybones: Nana's Vibrator: Murkanen: ...whose cult inspired the Handmaiden's Tale...

Also, since it was mentioned, from Snopes:

Mostly False

What's True
Amy Coney Barrett, U.S. President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, is affiliated with People of Praise, a charismatic Christian group. The group's practices reportedly include calling female members' advisers "handmaids" and giving men authority over their families, both themes that are employed in "The Handmaid's Tale."

What's False
Margaret Atwood, author of "The Handmaid's Tale," has not explicitly cited People of Praise as an inspiration for the book, though she has more than once cited a similar religious sect that calls female members "handmaids." Despite contradictory statements from Atwood suggesting uncertainty on her part, we found no evidence that People of Praise, specifically, served as the inspiration for the book.

/The nomination is bullsh*t, her religion is bullsh*t, I'm fully on board with both of those views.

I think I read somewhere that the book came out a year before the "religion" started. So, the book may have inspired the religion and not the reverse.


Actually, after some checking it seems there is confusion between her group and a similarly named People of Hope, who were more likely the inspiration for the book.

It seems the internet misled me. I'm going to need a nap to overcome the shock.
 
Displayed 50 of 225 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.