President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

That's true about hate crimes, discrimination or any crime where the intent is an element of the crime. The prosecution has the burden to prove it with evidence (what did she tell people? Did she buy furniture and then, schedule an abortion after receiving a diagnosis etc.). If they can't, you can't convict.

 

During a hate crime, a crime is still being committed, even without the hate provision, so there already is evidence of an illegal act.

Abortion is legal. What evidence would be available that the woman is having the abortion, which is legal, because it may have Down Syndrome?

 

She tells people she's excited to become a mother. She buys furniture. She gets a Down diagnosis. She has an abortion.

Firstly, how would police or prosecutors even know about the abortion? Who is telling them? And if they ask, all she says is she had a miscarriage. Then what?

Or, if they somehow find the evidence of an abortion, she says she just change her mind because she was afraid of giving birth. Or decided she couldn't afford it. Or she just doesn't want to be a mother. Then what?

 

Ironic in that the Trump administration is acting exactly like the media they despise in that they're going to be costing kids scholarships.

 

The prosecution decides whether they think they can prove it and a jury decides if they did. Haven't you ever seen law and order?

 

The problem, though, like I said, is that the basic act is legal. The prosecution would be trying a case in which a woman was exercising her legal right.

 

Can we get the father in as an accessory? And I can see most friends refusing to answer these questions. How about doctor patient confidentiality? The more you show a little preview of the process the more bizarre it is.

 

Baron, do you think it's wrong to charge someone with two murders when they kill a pregnant woman?

 

This is not a defense of abortion, but I do believe that poor children have less of a chance to grow up and prosper in a world governed by the cruelty now in vogue in the republican party. It's great to promote adoption, etc., but if you're going to do that, why then advocate policies such as the elimination of CHIP? Contradictory.

 

How's that tax relief gonna feel in a few years when it has disappeared, as estimates indicate it will for a majority of the country during the life of this abomination of legislation?

 

That is gonna be a go-to point right there. Not saying it's valid. Just that the college sports industry has already hired lawyers and accountants and analysts to crank up the spin machine.
Let's wait a year or two and see what the philanthropic revenue is. I predict it's not going to dip appreciably if at all. People don't give to college sports in search of a tax break; they give to fund their favorite team and get benefits.

 

Speaking of the party of pro-life choices: