‘but what about the people that will suffer and die because of abortion bans?’

like... they know, dude. they already know.

It's impossible to consent to an action without consenting to the consequences of that action. So regardless of my personal feelings about the relevancy of consent, you do give consent to pregnancy when you consent to sex.

No it’s quite literally not impossible. Why would it be? Because you said so? There’s no written law that says that. Especially not to an action that involves your body and health.

If I go outside, am I consenting to the consequences it may bring? Am I consenting to getting robbed or kidnapped ? If I smoke, am I consenting to lung cancer? Do I have to see it through full term then and accept my consequences of dying with no medical intervention?

You said yourself you can’t consent to a biological process such as impregnation, implantation is something you can’t control but you can control an ongoing pregnancy. This is a ongoing biological process that you can decide where it stops. The whole point of not being able to consent in certain biological processes is that you are quite literally unable to. You are able to consent to an ongoing biological process because it hasn’t reached its full term yet.

Is there a Supreme Court case that gives you autonomy over another person's body? Because in abortion you're not just exercising autonomy over your own body, it's also making a decision about the body of a separate human being.

Okay let me break this down for you because you’re so close to getting yet so far, please tell me where you get lost.

You can make a decision about an entire different human being when they are using your body to sustain their life without your ongoing consent. A pregnancy is a ongoing process that you can control the progression of ( implantation is the biological action you can’t control because it will happen whether or not you consent to the sex ) but you can control a pregnancy and there’s no legal reason why you wouldn’t be able to refuse to sustain the life of someone else with your body when that is literally not the case anywhere else. A fetus dying as a result of being taken out of the womb that you do not wish to grant consent to anymore, is literally equivalent to you refusing to sustain the life of a child that is on a organ donar list. They are both dying because of your refusal to sustain their lives via your bodily organs.

The entire point is that you nobody has autonomy over another person’s body. That’s what I’m arguing, you’re the one arguing that someone does.

In a pregnancy, who is using the other person’s bodily autonomy to survive? It’s not the mother.

Who’s body is giving the recourses? Who’s body is the fetus inhabiting? The body that’s being inhabited by another is hers.

She’s the one who’s autonomy is being taken over without her ongoing consent. This is not a case of the the mother and fetus both giving up their organs and sustaining each other. Only one party is taking while the other is receiving . Only one life is being sustained by another body.

What’s not clicking for you? She’s the one that’s exercising her rights. She’s the one with the rights. The mother has the right to refuse to sustain a life with her own body because nobody has a right to another person’s body.

You’re not understanding that even if an 8 week old fetus had rights , their rights wouldn’t overpower her rights because she’s the one that’s sustaining the life with her body.

I get what you're saying. That's not the issue. The issue is you are wrong about all of it so I am disagreeing with you.

I get you think the baby has no rights but you are wrong about that. That is something you made up and are pretending is true but the baby does have rights because they are a human being and if you are a human being you have human rights so when you say the baby has no rights you are objectively and categorically incorrect.

I get you think you can make decisions about the life and body of another person when it involves your own body but you are wrong. It is never ok to intentionally kill another human being, even if the law says it is. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, protects the inalienable right to life so any law that goes against the Constitution is an illegitimate law.

I get you think bodily autonomy gives you the right to make decisions about another person's body if they are inside your own body but you are wrong about that.

I get you think bodily autonomy trumps the right to life but, once again, you are objectively wrong. Your statements are untrue.

The baby is not infringing on the woman's rights. It's impossible for a biological process to infringe on a person's rights. The baby has the right to exist and live as a human and a necessary part of human life is growing in the womb. That's how human life works. You don't get to decide if your baby has the right to live. You not wanting the baby to exist doesn't mean the baby is infringing on your rights.

I understand what you're saying. But what you're saying is wrong. And you keep repeating yourself over and over again as if saying it one more time will get me to agree with you but you've offered no reasoning as to why you're correct other than your own misguided and naive opinions and understanding of how pregnancy and human rights work. The problem is not that I don't understand. The problem is you think the fact that I don't agree with you means I'm not understanding what you're saying. Maybe you should try providing sources other than yourself to back up the ridiculous assertions you're making.

But honestly the fact that you actually think there is a group of human beings that do not qualify for human rights is the real issue here. That shows what kind of person you have to be in order to be pro-choice. Saying there are human beings that don't have human rights always leads to the worst things in history. Are you sure that's a hill you want to die on?

Abortion: Should it be legal?

Legislators should pass a law at the federal level protecting abortion before 20 weeks, then after 20 weeks allow individual states to restrict abortions beyond that point with, exceptions to health reasons. After the overturning of Roe v. Wade abortion was one of the most controversial topics. Jane Roe was pregnant at the time the case was brought to court and she was seeking an abortion but Texas law only allowed abortions to save the life of the mother. Jane argued that she had a right to privacy. "The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."(Roe v. Wade) Even though the constitution does not directly say women have a right to privacy, it is implied.

America is run based on the fact that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and personal security. So if we take away a women's right to abortion completely, are we not taking away their right to liberty? When a fetus is conceived, they are not viable or able to sustain life without the support of their mother until around 24 weeks "Blackmun stated that viability occurs at the earliest at 24 weeks". (Abortion, p. 367) If a fetus isn't viable before 24 weeks then it is not yet a person and therefore a women should have the right to seek an abortion. "Blackmun noted that fetuses have never been regarded in the law as full persons. Thus, according to Blackmun, the State interest in protecting life becomes compelling when the fetus is able to exist outside the mother's womb as a separate and full person." (Abortion, p.367) If a fetus does not yet count as a full person why should their life be put before the life and health of the mother.

The opposing side might argue that even though the fetus isn't viable without the mother carrying it, it is still a person and has a right to life like everyone else. But when abortion is made illegal it affects the lives and health of women. When abortions are performed by a medical professional in a safe environment things are more likely to go smoothly but with abortion being mad illegal in some states, other women are left with no other options. "When governments restrict access to abortions, people are compelled to resort to clandestine, unsafe abortions, particularly those who cannot afford to travel or seek private care." (Key Facts on Abortion)

Although arguments can be made for both sides, I stand behind my decision that abortion should be legal up until 24 weeks and then regulations can be placed. Abortion laws have changed a lot overtime and I have no doubt that they will continue to change as technology advances and we learn more about life.

Abortion

Abortion Proposal Argument

Abortion is a common procedure that is preformed in all parts of the world and often the most controversial. Over 25 million non medical abortions are preformed yearly in countries where abortions are considered illegal, which is highly dangerous and also puts the mother at risks. Many things can make someone decide whether an abortion is preferable for them such as if they are not financially fit to take care of a baby, if they have medical problems where it would result in them dying, or if the baby is at risk for having medical problems. Abortions should be legal because they will continue to happen whether it is legalized or not, the issue is drawing a line on where it is acceptable, and where it is inhumane. 

As we can see, criminalizing abortions does not stop them, it just increased the risk of other people. If someone is willing to put their own life at risk to terminalize an unwanted pregnancy, there must be something done about it. Not all abortion should be legalized by any means, if someone is 8 months pregnant they should not be able to walk into an abortion  clinic and have an abortion preformed on them, but up to a certain extent abortion should be legalized everywhere. A fetus us unable to feel pain until after 20 weeks in the womb, this being said, that should be the cut off date for when abortions should be legal. There should be some other rules saying that if the mothers life is at risk past the 20 week point, they should be able to get a legalized abortion to save their life. The fetus at 20 weeks has not yet formed organs and does not yet have pain receptors, so abortions preformed at this point will not hurt the fetus. The cost should remain the same as the price it is now, which is around $400 , if they are willing to get it, they should be willing to pay for it. If they cannot afford it, there can be payment plans set up and they can pay it off over time.

Many countries think that abortions are not okay and they they should not take place, those same countries tend to have the highest rate of illegal abortions. Having abortions legalized can potentially save the lives of many expectant mothers who do not want to cary their babies to full term. Many people can argue that this is taking away a life, but having a baby puts some mothers lives at risk. Not everyone is able to have a complication-free birth process, and they should have the right to fight for their own life rather than the fetus’. It is also possible for the baby itself to undergo some problems while it is in the womb. Mothers who know that their babies will not make it past infantry, or even birth, should definitely get a say in whether they would like to terminate the pregnancy before they have to go through an even harder time with birthing the baby and having it die. 

Many parents who do decide to go full term with their pregnancy are not financial, or even mentally, ready to take care of a child. In these cases the children are put into foster care until they find a home. There are around 400,000 children currently in the foster system of the United States alone. Many of these kids get abused by their foster parents, develop mental illness and other horrible things. If a mother knew that their child would be in that position due to them not being able to take care of them, they should be able to decide if they want an abortion because they are not able to provide the baby with the life it deserves. Having more kids in the foster care system, or having parents needing to go on food stamps or other types of cash assistance because of their children, will cost the government a lot of money. Another common argument is that a form of protection should have been used and there are other precautions that should have taken place to prevent the pregnancy in the first place, but that is not the case. Forms of birth control are not easily available for all people, especially people in developing countries, and no form of birth control is proven to be 100% effective. This being said, someone can take all the precautions and still end up with an unwanted pregnancy and it should be their decision on what to do with it. 

It can be argued that many people will get abortions for selfish reasons and not in cases where it is needed, but having the person getting the abortion pay for it themselves will defenitly lower this risk. Another issue that someone may have with my solution is that the potential parent should have planned more accordingly and prevented the pregnancy all together, but like I stated before, it is not always that easy and “accidents” where all precautions were taking place and a child was still conceived does occur. There is also the case where the mother could have been impregnated as a result of a rape, they should not have to carry their abusers baby or have it as a constant reminder of the horrific incident that took place, especially if they did not even want the baby.

In a perfect world, every expectant mother would have a risk-free pregnancy and have enough money to pay for it, but that is not the world that we live in. Many factors such as financial issue, problems with the foster care system, and medical problems relating to the pregnancy stand ground for being a adequate reason that an abortion would be needed. Having abortion be legal within the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy will keep the fetus from feeling pain, and will get rid of fatalities due to illegal abortions. Terminating a pregnancy is not something that anyone wants to go through, but in some cases, it is the last resort and is what is needed.

Bibliography

3 Reasons Why Abortion Should Be Legal. fizzymag.com/articles/3-reasons-why-abortion-should-be-legal. 

Jones, Clarissa. “Top 10 Reasons Abortion Should Be Legal.” List Land, 27 Aug. 2019, www.listland.com/top-10-arguments-in-support-of-abortion/. 

“Here Are the Basic Facts about Abortion That You Should Know.” Amnesty International, www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/. 

A response to “A Response To Your Bodily Autonomy Argument”

So. I've seen around this bullshit anti-choice article titled "A Response To Your Body Autonomy Argument", by Kelli Raines. As you can imagine, Raines is against the concept of bodily autonomy, and argue that pregnant people should be forced to give up their own bodily autonomy (when, in pretty much all other cases, we do NOT allow someone to violate another's bodily autonomy*).

(*: If A violates B's bodily autonomy, B is authorized to use the minimum amount of force required to make A stop. This isn't B violating A's bodily autonomy; this is B stopping A's violation of B's bodily autonomy - violation that had no right to exist in the first place.)

Wow, strong argument, right? But I’d like to break it down a little bit, beginning with the comparison of a mother’s providing for a fetus to someone being “forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs.” There is a huge discrepancy here that isn’t being noted: when you fail to donate blood, tissue, or organs, you are not directly killing a human being. Yes, your lack of donation could lead to the death or ailment of someone, but with an abortion, a child is being killed, by your own hand, by your own choice. Not simply getting its resources removed.

Except that, when pregnant people intentionally cause a miscarriage by starving themselves and generally NOT taking care of the pregnancy, that should NOT qualify as "directly killing a human being"; it should qualify as "removing resources from the fetus". But instead, anti-choicers consider that to be "murder". So, clearly, this part can be safely ignored, given that it doesn't matter whether you, by exercising your right to your own bodily autonomy, cause someone's death directly (even though many abortions are performed by doctors, not pregnant people...) or indirectly.

A fetus clearly doesn’t have the ability to speak or to persuade the mother to keep it, either.

This part, instead, is completely and utterly irrelevant to the matter of bodily autonomy. We do NOT require people to speak up with patients before allowing them to decide "Do you want to donate your organs or not?". Likewise, if a comatose patient doesn't have "the ability to speak or to persuade" the potential donor to donate their (the potential donor's) own organs, we don't force said potential donor to donate; we give them the choice. This entire part is bullshit.

Looking at the writer’s point that a fetus is in a woman’s body by permission, not by right, I’d argue that that child would not be in that woman’s body without (in most cases) being the result of a decision that that woman made.

This part? This is bullshit.

For starters, no, people don't just decide to get pregnant. They decide to try to get pregnant. Do you know what's the chance of getting a successful conception from one sexual intercourse? It depends on what day of the 28-day menstrual cycle you're in, but assuming that you're in the most fertile day of said cycle, it's 30%. Like, even in your fertile day, you're more likely to NOT conceive than to CONCEIVE. And again: that's on the most fertile day of the cycle only. The average chance during  the most fertile week of the cycle? 13% - less than half. The average chance for a random day? 4%. I'd like to point out that all of these percentages are for conception only. After that, there's implantation - which comes with its own dice roll. And then there's the actual pregnancy, with a whole slew of personal dice rolls.

There's also the part about the people who evidently did NOT want to get pregnant. Like rape victims, for example (which the author completely ignores). Or people who use contraception - it's quite clear that THEY didn't want to get pregnant. (Oh, but I can already hear the anti-choicers: "But Aridara! They chose to have sex! Therefore they chose to get pregnant! Therefore they chose to keep the pregnancy!". Well, if I choose to get in a car and drive, I'm pretty sure I do NOT choose to get in a car accident; and, in case I do get involved in a car accident, I certainly do NOT choose to keep all my injuries untreated. Find a different anti-choice argument.)

But the most important bit, I think, is how they focus on what the woman did. Let's ignore for a second how Raines falls in the common myth that "Only women can get pregnant"; according to her, pregnancy is the fault of the now-pregnant person's choices. Except that pregnancy requires two people. Assuming, like Raines is doing, that this is a pregnancy created through a mutually consensual sexual intercourse, this means that there's two people who chose to have sex. Therefore, according to Raines's logic, the fetus is the result of a decision that two people made.

There is no mention whatsoever of the non-pregnant partner in the article.

I think that the hypocrisy of railing about "responsibility" to dump a violation of one's basic human rights to someone, while completely avoiding addressing the "responsibility" of the other person involved, speaks for itself. This isn't about the fetus, or about the responsibility of having created it. This is, specifically, a punishment for being pregnant.

The author sums up his argument with two points, the first being that by not allowing a pregnant woman to get an abortion, you are “granting a fetus more rights to other people’s bodies than any born person.” This really just sums up how the bodily autonomy argument falls short—by not granting women the right to an abortion, you are not giving a fetus more rights than other human beings. You are simply not giving a pregnant woman more rights than another human being. No one, pregnant or otherwise, is legally allowed to kill an innocent person, and by granting a woman the right to abort her child, we are giving her more rights than other humans.

What Raines completely fails to address is that, if A's bodily autonomy is violated by B, we do allow A to use the minimum amount of force required to stop B's violation of A's rights. Even if employing said "minimum amount of force" will result in B's death. Even if employing said "minimum amount of force" will directly result in B's death. Even if B didn't even realize they were violating A's bodily autonomy. Even if B was A’s biological offspring.

So, YES, you ARE depriving pregnant people of a right otherwise guaranteed by everyone else. Conversely, this means that you're allowing fetuses only a "right" - the "right" of being allowed to violate impunely another's bodily autonomy - that nobody else has.

The last paragraph (beside the ending) is pretty much a repeat of the "action/inaction difference" argument and of the "But the womanpregnant person's choice to get pregnant!" argument, both of which have been already addressed by me.

Bleh.

Bible Arguments 9

By DeYtH Banger "Many of our biological instincts are nurturing, but some are thoughtlessly violent. Reasoning may be based on untested premises or inadequate information, resulting in bad conclusions. Many laws derive from primitive tribal fears or the privilege of power and may have nothing to do with morality." - Dan Baker "Speaking about morality, good is the absence of harm. To be good is to act with the intention of minimizing harm What else is meant by morality? Morality is not a huge mystery. Ethics is simply concerned with reducing harm. (There is a difference between ethics and morality—one is theory and the other is practice—but most people informally use the two words as synonyms, so I will too. Some nonbelievers don’t even think we need the word “morality,” and they have a point, but I am using the word in the informal sense of “how should we act?”) Morality is not a code." - Dan Baker "It is not pleasing an authority figure. It is not “bringing glory” to a god, religion, tribe, or nation. It is not passing a test of virtue. It is not hoping to be told someday that “you are my good and faithful servant.” Humanistic morality is the attempt to avoid or lessen harm." - Dan Baker "I think most believers are good people. Although religious doctrine is generally irrational, divisive, and irrelevant to human values, some religions have good teachings sprinkled in with the dogma, and many well-meaning believers, to their credit, concentrate on those teachings. Surveying the smorgasbord of belief systems, we notice that they occasionally talk about peace and love. Who would argue with that? Sermons and holy books may encourage charity, mercy, and compassion, even sometimes fairness. These are wonderful ideas, but they are not unique to any religion. We might judge one religion to be better than another, but notice what we are doing. When we judge a religion, we are applying a standard outside of the religion. We are assuming a framework against which religious teachings and practices can be measured. That standard is the harm principle. If a teaching leans toward harm, we judge it as bad. If it leans away from harm, it is good, or at least better than the others. If a religious precept happens to be praiseworthy it is not because of the religion but in spite of it. Its moral worth is measured against real consequences, not orthodoxy or righteousness." - Dan Baker "Mere Morality is all about. (“Do unto others” is decidedly not a good rule for masochists, psychopaths, or people with kinky sexual preferences, religious obsessions, or simply bad taste.) Religious groups such as Buddhists, Jains, and Quakers that are known for their ideals (if not always practices) of pacifism are more moral than groups such as Christian Crusaders, Muslim suicide bombers, and Kamikaze pilots, whose dogma has led directly to violence. We can make this judgment on the basis of lessening harm, which is a principle available to all of us. So the good values that a religion might profess are not religious values. They are human values. They transcend religion, not in a supernatural sense, but in the natural sense that they are available to everyone, regardless of our particular religious heritages or choices." - Dan Baker "What day of the week you should worship, how many times you should say a certain prayer, what religious texts you should memorize, how you should dress, whether women should wear jewelry or makeup in church (or whether their bodies should be seen at all), what words you can say or pictures you can draw or songs you can sing, what books you should read or music you should listen to or movies you should watch, what foods you should eat, whether you can drink alcohol or caffeine, whether women can take positions of leadership, if and how women should submit to men, how women should control their own reproductive future, who your children are allowed to date or marry, how gays, nonconformists, heretics, or infidels should be dealt with, how a class of privileged leaders (clergy) should be treated or addressed or whether they should be allowed to marry, how much of your money or time is demanded by the religion, how many times a day you should pray, what words should be said or what direction you should face during prayer…" - Dan Baker "If religious teachings cause unnecessary harm—and they often do—they are immoral and should be denounced. If we play C. S. Lewis’s game and separate out common human morality, Mere Morality, from religion, nothing is left worth praising on ethical grounds. (We might appreciate religious art or music, for example, but this is irrelevant to morality.) Turn it around and strip each religion of its weird supernatural and ritualistic uniqueness and what is left, if anything—such as peace, love, joy, charity, and reciprocal altruism—is Mere Morality, or humanistic goodness…" - Dan Baker "Since harm is natural, not supernatural, its avoidance is a material exercise. Harm is a threat to survival. It is disease, predators, parasites, toxins, invasion, war, violence, theft, parental neglect, pollution of the environment, excessive heat, cold, lack of food, water, shelter, and adequate clothing, unsafe working conditions, accidents, drowning, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, volcanos, winds, storms, lightning, mudslides, coastal erosion … you can add to this list, but whatever you add will be natural." - Dan Baker "Intention is crucial when determining the legality or morality of an action. If you trespass on my property and trample through my garden while fleeing from an attacker, I will not press charges. If you do it because you hate my family, then I will press charges. In the first case, I can see that my garden is minimal collateral damage in the overall assessment of harm. In the second case, it is maximal harm, in context…" - Dan Baker "People who are selfish, greedy, and egotistical may indeed be trying to minimize the harm to their own personal lives, but if they are ignoring the harm their actions cause to others, they are not acting morally. That is what morality means. That is why we have laws against theft, homicide, battery, abuse, mayhem, and perjury. Mere Morality does not mean we should completely ignore our own interests; it means we should take all harm into account. If an action results in a harm that is much greater to yourself than to another person or persons, then it is not immoral for you to protect yourself. That’s why we allow for the motive of self-defense in a trial." - Dan Baker "Harm is still harm, whether it is social or not, but your body is your body, and if you are mentally healthy, and if your action does not affect others, and if you can cover your own health expenses, then harming yourself is a health issue for you alone, not a moral issue for society. It should be none of my business what you do to yourself. (Although, if you are my friend, I may try to talk you out of it.)" - Dan Baker "…his own fingers (or some other body part, as Jesus encouraged in Matthew 19:11–125), that is certainly harmful and destructive, and may be unhealthy, but the act is only immoral if it affects other people—and it might indeed, especially if others are dependent on that person. (In my case, as a professional pianist, it would certainly affect others.) If I know in advance that that man is intending to lose a finger, and I suspect there is no good reason for it, then I am the one faced with the moral question of whether I should try to stop him. I certainly want to keep people from harming themselves, and I think most of us feel that way." - Dan Baker "Similarly, virtually all women who choose to have an abortion are making a mentally healthy and rational choice, a difficult decision for moral and health reasons. I’m not directly comparing a fetus to a finger, although most abortions occur when the fetus is smaller than the tip of your little finger. Contrary to the dogmatic opinions of the misnamed “pro-lifers,” abortion is not killing an unborn baby." - Dan Baker "In my opinion, that is immoral. Mental illness or instability are not “evil” or immoral. The consequences of the actions of mentally deficient people may indeed be harmful, but we put such people in the hospital, not in prison. It is a health issue, not a moral issue. For society, however, mental illness is indeed a moral issue because those who are entrusted with the authority to determine the fate of such individuals have to determine the course of action that results in the least amount of overall harm to society as well as to the individual involved…" - Dan Baker "Instinct and law prejudge your actions, but reason, the real-time investigator, can re-judge them, using the harm principle as the measure. All three of these tools, taken together, can make a powerful arsenal for moral decisions. For better or worse, they are all we have…" - Dan Baker "We now know that acts of charity and compassion actually boost pleasure chemicals in the brain, similar to how we feel when eating chocolate, listening to music, making love, or laughing. Why do you hold the door open for the person coming behind you? It’s partly learned common courtesy, but it’s more than that. You don’t know that person, and might not even like that person. It’s not just reciprocal altruism—“Listen, buddy, you better hold the door for me next time!”—because you would do it anyway. You would feel bad not doing it. Why? Part of it is pure instinct, part of it is chosen social cooperation, and part of it is the little chemical…" - Dan Baker "Thomas Jefferson was a deist, living just like an atheist with no religious practices, but believing there had to be some kind of starter god, or impersonal force that got everything going. The deists were the pre-Darwinian freethinkers, lacking a model for the origin of life. But Jefferson got it right about instincts, anticipating the theory of evolution by many decades. Charles Darwin famously wrote: “It has, I think, now been shewn that man and the higher animals, especially the Primates, have some few instincts in common." - Dan Baker "Frans de Waal, in his book The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society, gives many examples of nonhuman animals acting compassionately. Altruism is an evolved behavior that does not rely solely on having a “higher” brain that can construct formal moral philosophies." - Dan Baker

latamDate Scam

New Post has been published on http://mama-forum.ch/question/latamdate-scam/

latamDate Scam

1 baby utilizing ‘severe microcephaly’

Jannelissa Santana, 37 weeks expectant mothers,Standsnext to some other pamphlet describing Zika, Dengue also Chikungunya deterrence within the public emergency room living in San Juan on feb. 3. (Alvin Baez/Reuters)

in the two women that are pregnant in the usa infected with the Zika strain have taken with an abortions in recent months, each of our shelving units to find condition handle furthermore prohibition published Friday, and additionally two men and women may have experienced miscarriages. One lovely lady delivered your baby by working with sincere birth imperfections, whereas two blog writers created well small children. Two are nevertheless expecting a baby. most wives that’ve sought out clinical tests and studies for the virus, underscore the nervousness as concern made by the diseasesis causingas it then propagates coming from associated with the Americas, Particularly an excellent troubles via excessive having your baby complications linked with health issues.

whatever you ever wanted to know of the Zika herpes and its put about north and south usa. (Daron Taylor,Claritza Jimenez/The arizona share)

key women who had an abortion was in her 30s together came down with the herpes simplex virus inside the course of her first trimester whiletraveling toward a Zika involved area, typically organization said. as you’re my friend was previously 20 weeks mothers-to-be, that she worked out from anultrasound which experts claim jane’s fetus was previously afflicted with extreme mental faculties irregularities. health likewise tested thes amniotic fluid and found the existence of Zika trojan. “when you finish dialogue with your pet health care providers, the patient chosen that will help stop your wife’s pregnancies, your current CDC had written in a example emitted Friday. Officialsdid not actually package info enfolding the specific second abortion, pimple control to say it attracted anotherwoman whom previously had prove to be infected with Zika your first trimester ture of her getting.

[CDC stuff olympic games advisory: expectant mothers will want to ‘consider must not going’ that Rio]

all the agent announced rrn between the past july and so feb.. 10, It purchased at least 257 [url=https://www.pinterest.com/latamdate/latamdatecom/]LatamDate[/url] asks with regard to Zika herpes simplex virus verification of most women that in the us. nearly all of those instances, 97 p’cent, analyzed could be a negative for the virus. nevertheless, the CDC is considered administering nine expecting mothers in the us what individuals proved good along with Zika. all had noted warning signs of the virus which include temperature, hasty, joint pain and conjunctivitis and all had marched that would one in excess of two dozen Zika overwhelmed nations around the world, authorities claims.

Denise Jamieson, A CDC addict assisting manage the agency’s response to the break out, asserted the amount neuro irregularities managed one of select few of expectant mothers consisting of Zika must have been over researchers will have predictable.

Six [url=https://www.pinterest.com/latamdate/]latamdate[/url] this infected with the virus womenacquiredZika during their first trimester, unquestionably the CDC noted. worth mentioning, Two adept miscarriages along with two made a decision to have abortions. One female despatched a child who else been inflicted by”grave microcephaly, a medical condition as well as merely unusually very small scalp length and width, and likewise seizures, take the time eating, vision complications and moreover calcifications in the mind. One child birth is considered repeat, the most important CDC reported. The department testified that when you are remnants of the Zika strain were being identified with regard to fetal damaged tissues in use in just both miscarriages, “it’s not so much known whether Zika hsv illness allowed the pregnancy losses, somewhere around 10 up to 20 per-cent of every single pregnant woman experience miscarriages the particular first trimester, officials described.

investing in had an experience with Zika? show regarding it.

of the two women that are pregnant in addition to Zika defined throughout their second trimester, One delivered an reportedly well balanced baby and then this band are brilliant still conceived. the expectant chick individual gone through Zika implications for the lady third trimester later sent proper infant.

Friday’s document gives increase an additional dimensionto the ongoing initiatives by way of professionals across the nation together with to another country to reply some of those unfortunate mysteries surroundingthe once hide Zika pc virus. presents itself that feature is determiningwhether and also the the herpes virus is linked to your pregnancy problems in particular microcephaly, and also to suits of an exceptional autoimmune sickness also known as Guillain Barr malady. the many people interaction, mostly to help you potential issues doing infants, are already getting much more likely in the past.

“the evidence obtain could obtaining and obtaining effective and, Anthony Fauci, director of the nation’s institutions to produce allergy symptom to infectious ailments, informed congress with just one united states senate seeing and hearing this week.

[CDC investigates 14 potential protective cases linked while making love transported Zika]

CDC home tom Frieden described Friday that exceptional should be assured that there is an association between Zika anti-virus to microcephaly. but there is however much these types of people continually don’t get, as well as kansas city lasik the potential health risks are quicker at a variety of points in pregnancy with whether outlined factors that can influence it is likely that birth and labor issues. he said scientific study has undertaken analysis to answer one particular challenges inside south america, Where cellular phone microcephaly situation is almost certainly finest.

“there are a lot things people fancy was confident nearly impossible to find and are working out, Frieden acknowledged. “regarded as really atypical prevalence.. component of scientific research is going to be finding additional info step-by-step, Trying to ensure to never overstate what the outcome performances,

Frieden told Friday that the american needs 147 claimed Zika occasions inside of 24 states as well as also region, extremely included with people who visited to parts influenced by the herpes virus.

regrettably Friday’s CDC e book moreover highlights hard important questions who women who are pregnant facade when they are contaminated with the Zika computer virus, you’re able to the orlando furthermore [url=https://www.bitchute.com/video/Fr4d9rkAogfb/]latamDate Scam[/url] social debates which use unfolded considering that the increased prevalence has now multiplication. only Francis stopped in immediate need of discussing abortion had better be condoned.

“Abortion isn’t an inferior unpleasant, It’s a criminal offense, the guy declared correspondents recently. “agreeing to one your life of saving an additional, that’s what the Mafia totally does. It’s a criminal offense. It’s a bad,

[El Salvador questions men and women to wait until 2018 to conceive]

The mind-blowing distribution of Zika contains put up the spectre with the meltdown in labor and birth defects from your 1960s. during that decade, Thousands of youngsters becoming designed thanks to malformed hands or legs quickly after personal moms written up thalidomide, which in fact had been sold as a gentle napping drug. not to mention a predicted 20,000 extra young children have already been delivered with the help of situations based on the warm, tvs and radio stations, strength and various other otherwisegansafter that mothers were contaminated with in german measles rubella.

Both that crises are viewed so very important to allow them to switching open to the public estimation that is related to whether abortion has to be legal at a period when the is worth concerning Roe v. sort ended up actually being argued.

Of projected 700,000 legal abortions because happen within the equally year, only a small percentage are generally regarded from natal defects. reality options are not nesessary to track regarding need to the ladies choose the manipulation, A 2004 examine while using Guttmacher institute stumbled on that particular only 13 for every cent performed their own picking from possible problems which affects the unborn infant. (the majority of others in the industry said hello was website baby may hugely difference their residing or which could not easily afford to experience a child.)

rich Beigi, major medical representative of Magee womens clinic of university or college of Pittsburgh medical, exactly who now has written virtually any JjudgmentMunit on Zik, recounted unquestionably the CDC analysis refers to possibility many expecting a baby girlfriend already have however isn’t provide you with any factors.

so the CDC advises expanded security enrolling for every 18 within 20 weeks for diagnosed of having a Zika an infection, There is smaller a girl is capable of doing during the time with the exception of sentimentally organize the little one or decide either to eliminate having a baby probability assumed microcephaly.

An online discussion that has some good information.

The follow is a conversation I had with someone whose mind will never be changed, not by logic, not by reason and no it her God himself appeared to her and argued the pro-choice side. Still, most of the facts were mind, are backed up by fact and statistics and I'm pretty proud of it. I suggest you read and use these facts if, like me, you occasionally have to engage the other side. February 21, 2017 Abortion The question was what is my opinion on abortion today. It was posted by a page that used to promote discussion on differing religions. On January 01, 2017 the name changed to "Is Jesus the Reason?". Below are my thoughts, a comment on my thought and my extremely long reply to that comment. Dorothy Abernathy The women of Flint MI are NOT lining up for abortions even though the American government responsible for poisoning their babies has offered absolutely no support for the children born with lead caused birth defects. Maybe, just maybe, if all women were sure they'd be able to care for, feed, shelter, provide medical care and medication and educate their children, those who struggle with the decision might decide to carry their child to term. No, those you believe choose abortion because it's easy will never make the choice you want, whether or not it's legal. But those who are struggling to support the child or children they already have and worry every month that their own skipping meals won't stretch the food far enough or that that keeping the heat at 60 and putting double sweatshirts, sweatpants and double socks on the kids won't have the oil last until the next delivery maybe those women would welcome a child if they knew they could provide for it. And the women living in their cars with a child or more, they don't decide to abort because they don't love children. The moment the anti-abortion movement become the pro-child movement they will have my full support. As long as a majority ignore the women struggling every day to raise their children while being blamed for being poor and/or uneducated, I'll direct my support to those children who don't know if or when their next meal is coming from. Valdis Vogt This does not make murder ok. You say the children need to be cared for but then if they can not be cared for they should be murdered? Think about it like this: use every argument for abortion on that of a child outside of the womb and you will see how corrupt this sounds. A child can be given up for adoption as well. Murdering your own child is not love and never will be. Dorothy Abernathy 101,840. That is a very large number. It's also the number of children available for adoption in 2013, the most recent year a report is available, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. You might think that anyone mentally, physically and financially prepared would be able to adopt a child. Yet according to the publication "LifeNews" there are 36 couples waiting for every baby adopted. It seems like those two facts couldn't co-exists but the reason it took me over 3 hours to reply was because I wanted to make sure both facts were correct. Plus, I must admit I was worried "LifeNews" anti-abortion viewpoint might skew the fact, but it's true. There are 36 traditional married couples for every baby adopted. I'm fairly certain the problem results from the fact that so many of the children in the governments statistics aren't newborn, aren't Caucasian and might be slightly less than physically or mentally perfect, depending on a person's definition of perfect. For those of us who share our lives with such children, and through the eyes of the God I worship everyone of the 101,840 are absolutely perfection, but that's just me. I understand the desire to cradle an infant in your arms, to rock him to sleep, to count those little fingers and toes, however many he may have been blessed with, I even understand wanting to change the dirty diaper because you know that you'll take the moment to warm the cold baby wipe in your hand to avoid giving your most precious darling a jolt with the contact of the cold wipe. I understand exactly why these couples want a baby. But if I had to miss the first 6 months, first year, first 5 years, I would because until you bring your child home you can't start. Start tickling, start fixing eggs just as she likes, brushing her hair and playing baby dolls, reading a bedtime story and come running when she cries out at night to chase away the monsters then staying beside her to keep the monsters away even though you'll have a stiff neck the next day. Children are a precious gift that should be treasured. So, why are so many without parents while so many want children? Just because the child must be an infant? Really? Interestingly, a young, pregnant, white woman can hire a lawyer who specializes in adoption and can manage to legally auction off her fetus to the highest bidder. I don't claim you or any anti-abortion believer condone such hideous behavior and I'm aware that there are good people taken advantage of by scam artist everyday. I also don't think you or any other anti-abortionist has the right to decide what decision I make if I find myself pregnant and unable to be the mother to my child. But I can understand why a young woman, and by young I mean young enough to get pregnant, would choose not to leave her child at the mercy of the State. This country is the best but when the subject is caring for orphan children, well the bar is set incredibly low. Since not every child has would-be parents lined up to adopt it and a fetus with a possible defect discovered during pregnancy can be left without options, touting adoption as the solution is a false option. Until the number of 101,840 is reduced to hundreds instead of hundreds of thousands, statistics say that only white, healthy infants have people lining up to adopt them. Now, perhaps I've buried the lead. I would love to see abortion become more rare than finding two rare wheat pennies in your Stop & Shop change. But that will never happen while we scream at each other from across our protest lines. Murder is wrong and watching a child die from a disease because she's has no health insurance due to a "pre-existing condition" is murder. Letting a child die of carbon monoxide poisoning because her family is living in a car is murder. I think it would be great to save the "unborn" and you might have a better shot if you educated our young people about how they get pregnant and if birth control weren't such a taboo subject. The demonized Planned Parenthood has stopped more abortions than any other organization in the World. But they treat sex like a fact of life and realize "just say no" has never worked. I've spent a great deal of time considering this subject and I wish I could be on your side but as long as the born are dying from neglect, I don't have the time or inclination to add to that list. You state that "murdering your own child is not love and never will be." I disagree. I think there are quick painful ways to die and long,, ugly, horrifically painful ways to die. I would pray that no one ever have to choose but until that day, I choose quick. Now I understand, that if you have your way, abortions would be illegal, and you and those who agree with you may just get your way, but they won't stop. Abortion has existed for as long as pregnancy. There have always been reasons women were desperate to avoid having a child. Now, with the availability of birth control and scientific sex education, fewer women find themselves with unwanted pregnancy, but until science develops a reversible but foolproof way to avoid getting pregnant there will be abortion, legal or not. Rich women will do what they did before Roe vs Wade, they'll either have a D&C preformed by their regular GYN or take a short vacation to some other country where abortion is legal. Poor women? Well reversing Roe vs Wade will see them doing the same thing they did before too. Dying. In which case, they are both lost. Maybe someday we will all put aside our absolute surety, and work together to save as many lives as possible without judgement. Or maybe we will all remain so sure we're right that we will never even try to see the other side and nothing will ever change, no matter what the law says. If you've read my entire rambling thoughts on this important subject, I thank you. I believe you are fighting for what you believe is right. As am I. So, from the other side, I wish you a New Year filled with health, happiness and peace. I think the following is an extremely interesting point of view. Is it truth? Those who might know cannot talk....and by the time they're able the memories will have faded away. Andre Linnell I dont expect modern christians or any of their teachers teachers to know or even pretend to know; Logically if any spirit exists within another; that is possession and that is against Gods law. So the spirit of the person birthing down one dimension must therefore enter the body on the first intake of breath after birth not on conception or magically during the growth.

Three Things the Judge Says He'll Consider in Ruling on Texas Fetal Burial Law

As the weeklong trial over Texas' fetal burial law wrapped up on Friday, Federal District Judge David Ezra gave a good indication of what he'll be focusing on in his decision.

The plaintiffs - a collection of Texas abortion clinics and other health providers - said the law requiring burial or cremation of fetal and embryonic tissue after abortions and miscarriages at medical facilities is offensive and unnecessary. They argued that Senate Bill 8 burdens patients' right to freedom of speech and religion as well as their access to health care. (Typically, the tissue is treated like other medical waste, incinerated and placed in a sanitary landfill, though patients can choose to bury it instead.) Among those testifying against the law was Blake Norton, who was forced by a Catholic hospital in Austin to bury the remains of her miscarriage. The Observer published her story in April.

U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra  United States District Court

The state argued that the law demonstrates “profound respect for the life of the unborn.” In response to testimony that it would distress patients, state attorneys noted that the law doesn't require patient consent; if women don't want a burial, providers don't have to tell them.

Ezra, who temporarily blocked the law from taking effect in January, said he'll take closing arguments from both sides in writing by August 3. He hasn't said when he plans to rule, but on Friday he gave an idea of what he'll be considering: 

1. Does the law constitute an undue burden on abortion access?

This question has been the primary focus for Ezra throughout the trial. Amy Hagstrom Miller, president of Whole Woman's Health, a plaintiff in the case, testified that her organization struggles to find vendors willing to do anything from delivering water to resurfacing the parking lot because of anti-abortion hostility in Texas. Difficulty finding vendors to comply with the requirements of SB 8 would force providers to stop offering abortion services, said Hagstrom Miller, who called the law a “backdoor attempt” to shutter clinics. Currently, there's just one vendor in Texas that will work with her clinics to dispose of medical waste.

Ezra didn't seem convinced that the state had an adequate plan to ensure providers could meet the requirements of the law. Individual witnesses from funeral homes and cemeteries offering to help weren't enough, he said. When the state submitted a list of the 1,300 funeral homes in Texas, Ezra noted that it shows the “potential for capacity,” but there was no evidence they're actually willing to take tissue from abortion clinics.

State Senator Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, authored Senate Bill 8.  Sam DeGrave

Attorneys for the state pointed to a new registry under SB 8 of organizations willing to offer free or low-cost burial services as one solution to the potential capacity issue. But David Kostroun, a regulatory official with the state health department, said on Thursday that only 16 entities had signed up. Kostroun also acknowledged that the agency doesn't verify applicant information, do background checks, ask about financial stability, ensure there is a legitimate business, require a contract or stipulate any minimum criteria.

The uncertainty is “a problem,” said Ezra, adding that he needs to see evidence of how many businesses contractually agree to dispose of remains, how many remains they can take and where they're located. “Is there a failsafe, a backup, a way women can receive these services if something did not work?” he said in his closing statement.

2. What authority does the state have to pass this legislation?

Ezra wants to know why the state has the legal authority to pass this law under the stated purpose of “dignity” of the “unborn child.” He noted at the close of the trial that the state had taken off the table the typical argument that the law was intended to protect the health and safety of patients, and instead focused on the fetus - an “unusual” move that makes the case “extremely unique.”

Throughout the trial, Ezra seemed less receptive to the plaintiffs' arguments that the law imposes the state's arbitrary idea of what is “dignified” on patients and providers who have diverse religious and personal views. “I am not here as an ethicist,” Ezra said, noting his job was to determine whether the law infringes on the right to abortion. But he came back to the state's “dignity” point on Friday, asking for an explanation of the state's authority to pass the law on these grounds, and why it can be applied selectively to certain remains (the law includes exceptions for tissue that comes from pathology labs or from miscarriages or abortions that occur at home).

3. The challenged law includes miscarriages, not just elective abortions.

The framing of this case as a question of undue burden on abortion access is insufficient, in part because the law encompasses tissue from miscarriages, too - something Ezra acknowledged at length in his closing remarks.

Blake Norton with her mother, state Representative Donna Howard.  Sophie Novack

That experience made Norton feel “shamed and stigmatized,” she said in testimony against the law on Monday. If she had known about the hospital's burial policy, she said, she would have sought care elsewhere.

The shuttering of abortion clinics due to these new requirements is “what some people want,” Ezra said, alluding to conservatives in the Republican-controlled Legislature. But it's important to remember that the legislation could also limit care for patients who miscarry, even patients who may support the law, he added. “The question of whether women would be able to get services is of great concern, and should be to every citizen in Texas.”

The post Three Things the Judge Says He'll Consider in Ruling on Texas Fetal Burial Law appeared first on The Texas Observer.

Is projecting ‘Pay Trump Bribes Here’ onto a wall of the Trump Hotel a trespass?

Activists project phrases and the emoluments clause on the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., on Monday. (Liz Gorman/Bellvisuals.com)

CNN (Nicole Chavez & Emily Smith) reports:

Visitors to the Trump International Hotel in Washington were greeted with a provocative message Monday night: “Pay Trump bribes here.”

Artist and filmmaker Robin Bell said he projected those words onto the hotel’s facade from a van across the street, hoping to call attention to accusations that President Donald Trump is allowing foreign leaders to pay for access by staying at a Trump property just a few blocks from the White House. …

Bell also projected the text of the emoluments clause, which prohibits US officials from accepting foreign gifts, onto the hotel’s facade, alongside images of the Turkish and Russian flags.

Is this criminal trespass — or perhaps grounds for a civil lawsuit? It turns out that the answer is probably not, whether it’s anti-Trump messages, anti-Islam protesters projecting a Muhammad cartoon on a mosque wall, antiabortion protesters projecting an image of an aborted fetus, or (as is more common) unions projecting critical or offensive messages on the walls of businesses that they are protesting.

I think a specially designed law might well be able to forbid all projecting of text or images onto others’ property. But existing law likely doesn’t, at least unless the projection so interferes with the business (and for a considerable time) as to constitute an actionable “nuisance.”

The only case I’ve seen that has yielded written opinions on this question is Int’l Union of Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 15 Local 159 v. Great Wash Park, LLC, 2016 WL 4165919 (Nev. Ct. App. July 29, 2016). The court there concluded that the union had no First Amendment right or labor law right to project a message onto an employer’s wall. But it also held that the projection is just not against the law in the first place.

The majority opinion simply notes that states take two different approaches to “trespass.” Some define trespass as “invasion of land occurs through a physical, tangible [and more-than-microscopic] object.” (Smells wafting from a pig farm, for instance, are borne by physical objects, but they aren’t trespass.) Others also allow trespass lawsuits “when intangible matter, such as particles emanating from a manufacturing plant, cause actual and/or substantial damage to the [property].” Under either approach, this sort of light projection wouldn’t be a trespass.

Judge Jerome Tao, though, wrote a much longer concurring opinion (in addition to joining the court’s opinion) and one that strikes me as very interesting and thoughtful. First, he noted that:

Virtually all of the “light trespass” cases cited by the parties, and in the court’s order, concern the potential trespassory effects of “ambient” light, by which I mean light intended to serve a legitimate ulterior purpose on a nearby property but which incidentally happens to leak or diffuse onto the claimant’s property; common examples of this include construction lighting or light reflecting off the screen of a drive-in movie theater.

In contrast, this case involves something arguably different: a beam of light specifically and intentionally directed at the … property and nowhere else that served no purpose other than to intentionally light up the … building the way the Union wanted….

Nonetheless, he concluded that light reaching someone’s property just didn’t qualify as trespass under the law:

To analogize to a conventional trespass, a trespass committed by a person walking onto prohibited land would be no less a trespass if that person also happened to invade other nearby properties as well during his travels. Similarly, a pedestrian’s physical presence on the land constitutes a trespass regardless of whether he was there as part of an exercise routine utterly lacking a message, or whether he was there to make a point about something. Whether that person also trespassed onto other properties along the way, and whether his trespass was with, or free of, communicative purpose, are fundamentally irrelevant to whether a trespass occurred …

The [property owners] argue that the beam of light itself is, by definition, a “tangible” thing that can “invade” real property. … But what does it really mean to say that something is “tangible” or amounted to a “physical” invasion? … [The owners’ argument] is that the light projection constituted a trespass because light is composed of “particles” (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which the [owners] cite in their brief), and those particles are tangible and therefore capable of physically intruding across the [owners’] property line. But whether something is “tangible” or not does not seem to me to be a proper or clear legal test, at least not one that can be readily understood and applied to a wide range of facts.

Instead, the argument strikes me as a syllogism based upon superficial pseudo-science, and I am not sure that the outcome of this case ought to be governed by this kind of approach.

As an initial observation, the science relied upon by the [owners] appears to be wrong, or at least incomplete. If one really wants to get into the physics of the question, light has the properties of both a wave and a particle. …

More fundamentally, technical merit aside, scientific analysis and legal analysis are two different modes of inquiry designed to accomplish very different goals. … Even if it were unequivocally true that a quantum physicist would think of light as formed of particles, that conclusion alone should not govern whether we should find a trespass here as a matter of legal analysis and underlying public policy. …

Properly framed, I think the question before us is not whether light is tangible or not, but instead: what legal right inherent in property ownership does the light projection supposedly violate? …

Fundamentally, the right to own property is the right to exclude others from entering, using, or possessing it. In a real sense, whenever property is bought or sold, what has really been purchased is the right to sue someone in court for trespass for entering, using, or possessing the property without the owner’s permission. …

We are confronted with a clash between very old law and evolving new technology. Trespass is one of the oldest torts known to Anglo-American jurisprudence, dating as far back as twelfth-century England. But back then, even the most advanced thinkers of the day were not aware of such things as atoms, electrons, or photons. …

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the tort of trespass was originally limited to physical invasions of property by people or objects composed entirely of matter. … In an era lit by wax candles, and then whale-oil lamps, and then kerosene, there was not much that one could do to another’s property with light. But nowadays light can be so many more things and can be used in so many more ways; searchlights, lasers, and light projectors of the kind involved in this case are now commonplace. The inquiry here is whether the bundle of rights traditionally protected by the ancient tort of trespass should be read to include the right to stop the newly-developed light projection used here.

And the answer to that inquiry, Tao concluded, is that the question should be treated under the tort of nuisance rather than the tort of trespass:

The torts of trespass and nuisance are closely related, so much so that some courts have observed that expanding the tort of trespass to cover such things as light, gas, or odors effectively blurs the two torts together and makes them one. … Light invasions — at least of the kind at issue here — are better suited to be addressed by the law of nuisance than the law of trespass.

The fundamental conceptual difference between a trespass and a nuisance is that trespass is the right to exclude something absolutely, while nuisance is the right to exclude something that might have to be tolerated in small quantities but may become the subject of judicial relief when it becomes excessive and unreasonable even in an urban environment. … Thus, the tort of nuisance involves a balancing of competing interests with an eye toward ascertaining the reasonableness of the intrusion, while the tort of trespass is absolute and involves no such balancing.

What this means for this case is that, by claiming a trespass to have occurred, the [owners] are seeking an absolute bar against the invasion of projected light, without any inquiry whatsoever into whether the intensity, duration, or other qualities of the projection were unreasonable or excessive. … [But] every property located in a densely populated urban area … is continually bombarded by multiple artificial light sources, including such assorted things as street lamps, commercial neon signs, neighboring porch lights, automobile headlights, helicopter searchlights, … and the like. … All of these lights affect the appearance of the property with varying intensity and duration, some brief and barely perceptible, and some with great intensity for long periods of time. …

Ultimately, when the question is properly framed, the answer strikes me as quite simple: I do not think that the absolute right to block artificial light emanating from somewhere off of the property — without any inquiry into its intensity, duration, reasonableness or unreasonableness — should be included within the “bundle of rights” that one acquires when purchasing a parcel of land in a densely populated urban center like Las Vegas. …

On the other hand, simply because a property owner does not have the right to exclude all light emanating onto a property under trespass law does not mean that one must tolerate every kind of light that is beamed onto the property no matter how excessive or unreasonable it may be. In some cases, projecting artificial light onto someone else’s property might constitute an actionable private nuisance. The district court’s order contains no factual findings regarding whether such a nuisance occurred in this case, and so that question is not before us.

I would add that it would be hard to show that a projected message is a “nuisance” in the legal sense of the word, at least unless the message causes some harmful physical effects (e.g., it shines brightly into some guests’ windows and keeps them up at night). But it seems to me correct to say that any claim by property owners, under existing tort law, should be raised under a nuisance theory rather than a trespass theory. Whether a legislature should enact a new statutory right not to have text or images projected onto your property is a separate matter.

And that leads us to a practical question, but perhaps one with some legal significance: Wouldn’t it be relatively cheap to hire someone who’ll also stand on the sidewalk and project some light over wherever the protesters are projecting it? That wouldn’t make the wall look pretty, but it should be enough to make the original display illegible.

Or perhaps someone could just block the projector’s beam (though that might be easier or harder depending on where the projector is located). The Independent (UK) (Maya Oppenheim), for instance, reports that the protester in the Trump incident “said it took around ten minutes for security to come and block the projector.”

If one or another self-help solution is indeed relatively easy, should that matter to the legal analysis?

Thanks to Prof. Andy Sellars for the pointer to the most recent incident, which led me to reprise (in edited form) an earlier post of mine, which I put up shortly after the Nevada decision came down.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/16/is-projecting-pay-trump-bribes-here-onto-a-wall-of-the-trump-hotel-a-trespass/

Is projecting ‘Pay Trump Bribes Here’ onto a wall of the Trump Hotel a trespass?

Activists project phrases and the emoluments clause on the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., on Monday. (Liz Gorman/Bellvisuals.com)

CNN (Nicole Chavez & Emily Smith) reports:

Visitors to the Trump International Hotel in Washington were greeted with a provocative message Monday night: “Pay Trump bribes here.”

Artist and filmmaker Robin Bell said he projected those words onto the hotel’s facade from a van across the street, hoping to call attention to accusations that President Donald Trump is allowing foreign leaders to pay for access by staying at a Trump property just a few blocks from the White House. …

Bell also projected the text of the emoluments clause, which prohibits US officials from accepting foreign gifts, onto the hotel’s facade, alongside images of the Turkish and Russian flags.

Is this criminal trespass — or perhaps grounds for a civil lawsuit? It turns out that the answer is probably not, whether it’s anti-Trump messages, anti-Islam protesters projecting a Muhammad cartoon on a mosque wall, antiabortion protesters projecting an image of an aborted fetus, or (as is more common) unions projecting critical or offensive messages on the walls of businesses that they are protesting.

I think a specially designed law might well be able to forbid all projecting of text or images onto others’ property. But existing law likely doesn’t, at least unless the projection so interferes with the business (and for a considerable time) as to constitute an actionable “nuisance.”

The only case I’ve seen that has yielded written opinions on this question is Int’l Union of Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 15 Local 159 v. Great Wash Park, LLC, 2016 WL 4165919 (Nev. Ct. App. July 29, 2016). The court there concluded that the union had no First Amendment right or labor law right to project a message onto an employer’s wall. But it also held that the projection is just not against the law in the first place.

The majority opinion simply notes that states take two different approaches to “trespass.” Some define trespass as “invasion of land occurs through a physical, tangible [and more-than-microscopic] object.” (Smells wafting from a pig farm, for instance, are borne by physical objects, but they aren’t trespass.) Others also allow trespass lawsuits “when intangible matter, such as particles emanating from a manufacturing plant, cause actual and/or substantial damage to the [property].” Under either approach, this sort of light projection wouldn’t be a trespass.

Judge Jerome Tao, though, wrote a much longer concurring opinion (in addition to joining the court’s opinion) and one that strikes me as very interesting and thoughtful. First, he noted that:

Virtually all of the “light trespass” cases cited by the parties, and in the court’s order, concern the potential trespassory effects of “ambient” light, by which I mean light intended to serve a legitimate ulterior purpose on a nearby property but which incidentally happens to leak or diffuse onto the claimant’s property; common examples of this include construction lighting or light reflecting off the screen of a drive-in movie theater.

In contrast, this case involves something arguably different: a beam of light specifically and intentionally directed at the … property and nowhere else that served no purpose other than to intentionally light up the … building the way the Union wanted….

Nonetheless, he concluded that light reaching someone’s property just didn’t qualify as trespass under the law:

To analogize to a conventional trespass, a trespass committed by a person walking onto prohibited land would be no less a trespass if that person also happened to invade other nearby properties as well during his travels. Similarly, a pedestrian’s physical presence on the land constitutes a trespass regardless of whether he was there as part of an exercise routine utterly lacking a message, or whether he was there to make a point about something. Whether that person also trespassed onto other properties along the way, and whether his trespass was with, or free of, communicative purpose, are fundamentally irrelevant to whether a trespass occurred …

The [property owners] argue that the beam of light itself is, by definition, a “tangible” thing that can “invade” real property. … But what does it really mean to say that something is “tangible” or amounted to a “physical” invasion? … [The owners’ argument] is that the light projection constituted a trespass because light is composed of “particles” (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which the [owners] cite in their brief), and those particles are tangible and therefore capable of physically intruding across the [owners’] property line. But whether something is “tangible” or not does not seem to me to be a proper or clear legal test, at least not one that can be readily understood and applied to a wide range of facts.

Instead, the argument strikes me as a syllogism based upon superficial pseudo-science, and I am not sure that the outcome of this case ought to be governed by this kind of approach.

As an initial observation, the science relied upon by the [owners] appears to be wrong, or at least incomplete. If one really wants to get into the physics of the question, light has the properties of both a wave and a particle. …

More fundamentally, technical merit aside, scientific analysis and legal analysis are two different modes of inquiry designed to accomplish very different goals. … Even if it were unequivocally true that a quantum physicist would think of light as formed of particles, that conclusion alone should not govern whether we should find a trespass here as a matter of legal analysis and underlying public policy. …

Properly framed, I think the question before us is not whether light is tangible or not, but instead: what legal right inherent in property ownership does the light projection supposedly violate? …

Fundamentally, the right to own property is the right to exclude others from entering, using, or possessing it. In a real sense, whenever property is bought or sold, what has really been purchased is the right to sue someone in court for trespass for entering, using, or possessing the property without the owner’s permission. …

We are confronted with a clash between very old law and evolving new technology. Trespass is one of the oldest torts known to Anglo-American jurisprudence, dating as far back as twelfth-century England. But back then, even the most advanced thinkers of the day were not aware of such things as atoms, electrons, or photons. …

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the tort of trespass was originally limited to physical invasions of property by people or objects composed entirely of matter. … In an era lit by wax candles, and then whale-oil lamps, and then kerosene, there was not much that one could do to another’s property with light. But nowadays light can be so many more things and can be used in so many more ways; searchlights, lasers, and light projectors of the kind involved in this case are now commonplace. The inquiry here is whether the bundle of rights traditionally protected by the ancient tort of trespass should be read to include the right to stop the newly-developed light projection used here.

And the answer to that inquiry, Tao concluded, is that the question should be treated under the tort of nuisance rather than the tort of trespass:

The torts of trespass and nuisance are closely related, so much so that some courts have observed that expanding the tort of trespass to cover such things as light, gas, or odors effectively blurs the two torts together and makes them one. … Light invasions — at least of the kind at issue here — are better suited to be addressed by the law of nuisance than the law of trespass.

The fundamental conceptual difference between a trespass and a nuisance is that trespass is the right to exclude something absolutely, while nuisance is the right to exclude something that might have to be tolerated in small quantities but may become the subject of judicial relief when it becomes excessive and unreasonable even in an urban environment. … Thus, the tort of nuisance involves a balancing of competing interests with an eye toward ascertaining the reasonableness of the intrusion, while the tort of trespass is absolute and involves no such balancing.

What this means for this case is that, by claiming a trespass to have occurred, the [owners] are seeking an absolute bar against the invasion of projected light, without any inquiry whatsoever into whether the intensity, duration, or other qualities of the projection were unreasonable or excessive. … [But] every property located in a densely populated urban area … is continually bombarded by multiple artificial light sources, including such assorted things as street lamps, commercial neon signs, neighboring porch lights, automobile headlights, helicopter searchlights, … and the like. … All of these lights affect the appearance of the property with varying intensity and duration, some brief and barely perceptible, and some with great intensity for long periods of time. …

Ultimately, when the question is properly framed, the answer strikes me as quite simple: I do not think that the absolute right to block artificial light emanating from somewhere off of the property — without any inquiry into its intensity, duration, reasonableness or unreasonableness — should be included within the “bundle of rights” that one acquires when purchasing a parcel of land in a densely populated urban center like Las Vegas. …

On the other hand, simply because a property owner does not have the right to exclude all light emanating onto a property under trespass law does not mean that one must tolerate every kind of light that is beamed onto the property no matter how excessive or unreasonable it may be. In some cases, projecting artificial light onto someone else’s property might constitute an actionable private nuisance. The district court’s order contains no factual findings regarding whether such a nuisance occurred in this case, and so that question is not before us.

I would add that it would be hard to show that a projected message is a “nuisance” in the legal sense of the word, at least unless the message causes some harmful physical effects (e.g., it shines brightly into some guests’ windows and keeps them up at night). But it seems to me correct to say that any claim by property owners, under existing tort law, should be raised under a nuisance theory rather than a trespass theory. Whether a legislature should enact a new statutory right not to have text or images projected onto your property is a separate matter.

And that leads us to a practical question, but perhaps one with some legal significance: Wouldn’t it be relatively cheap to hire someone who’ll also stand on the sidewalk and project some light over wherever the protesters are projecting it? That wouldn’t make the wall look pretty, but it should be enough to make the original display illegible.

Or perhaps someone could just block the projector’s beam (though that might be easier or harder depending on where the projector is located). The Independent (UK) (Maya Oppenheim), for instance, reports that the protester in the Trump incident “said it took around ten minutes for security to come and block the projector.”

If one or another self-help solution is indeed relatively easy, should that matter to the legal analysis?

Thanks to Prof. Andy Sellars for the pointer to the most recent incident, which led me to reprise (in edited form) an earlier post of mine, which I put up shortly after the Nevada decision came down.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/16/is-projecting-pay-trump-bribes-here-onto-a-wall-of-the-trump-hotel-a-trespass/