Bans kill pregnant people
—Josseli Barnica 🇺🇸 TX 07Sep2021
—Yeniifer Alvarez-Estrada Glick 🇺🇸 TX 10Jul2022
—Amber Nicole Thurman 🇺🇸 GA 19Aug2022
—Candi Miller 🇺🇸 GA 12Nov2022
—Nevaeh Crain 🇺🇸 TX 29Oct2023
—Tierra Walker 🇺🇸 TX 30Dec2024

Yep. Each person’s bodily is their own, no one else’s.
No persons have a right to touch diff humans except to
1) bodily separate to end bodily autonomy violations
2) corral law-breaker thru legal system
3) aid health/safety of consent-impaired (does not incl right to touch other ppl, unless 1 or 2).

Like, is there a reason why some bigots, personally, associate the word gay with pornography, cuz there is such a a strong connection in their mind (and their mind’s eye) between gay and sexual deviancy or something? Like, it’s not anyone else’s problem, but they make it other people’s problems?

~OT: After found out I have aphantasia I wondered what homophobes were visualizing to have such a visceral reaction to even an indication of LGBTQ+ people existing in public/media when I was growing up (90s/2000s). It doesn’t happen much now, but I assume increased rep was a kinda exposure therapy🤔

The moment he invited his buddies into the hotel room with the expectation of sex, it became a hostage situation where EM was both hostage and negotiator, trying to doing anything to survive and avoid physical harm.

In a world where women will cross the street rather than be alone on a sidewalk with a man? I don’t even think a male victim would feel safe in the circumstances EM was in. I can only imagine that if courts use a reasonable man/woman standard in SA cases they don’t consider power dynamics at all.

Yep. How is it not considered intimidation that after a man has sex with a woman he invited 4 of his besties, without asking her, into the room with the expectation of sex? How does that not undermine her meaningful ability to feel safe dissenting to sex?

I was thinking about if parents with progressive faiths can sue… But this ruling seems to create a one-way ratchet favouring trad faiths views in 🏫 . Defending inclusive content will be framed as ideological, while removing it is ‘neutral’. 🏫 start implicitly endorsing trad faith views by omission.🫠

And any context that even imply that gay and trans people exist is somehow clearly somehow both anti-thetical to faith🙄, but if said by someone of faith, it will be too religious to be put in a classroom🥴… Instead of a simple statement of fact… That gay and trans people exist.

I imagine if anyone brought up church-state separation (if that even meaningfully exists under the precedents set by this court) I could see it being framed as we are taking things religiously objectionable out of school (or allowing opt-outs), but not putting in explicitly faith-based content 🫠

I was thinking about if parents with progressive faiths can sue… But this ruling seems to create a one-way ratchet favouring trad faiths views in 🏫 . Defending inclusive content will be framed as ideological, while removing it is ‘neutral’. 🏫 start implicitly endorsing trad faith views by omission.🫠

I was thinking about if parents with progressive faiths can sue… But this ruling seems to create a one-way ratchet favouring trad faiths views in 🏫 . Defending inclusive content now appears ideological, while removing it is ‘neutral’. 🏫 start implicitly endorsing trad faith views by omission. 🫠

How is Church & State separate if a public school can’t do anything that might ‘offend’ religious sensibilities… that could be construed as too pro-pluralism and pro-equality for their version of their faith?

Bigotry based on a trait one doesn’t share with all/most of one’s fam may mean less support.
LGBTQ+ kids can be born into any fam…Black kids oft have Black fams that’ve dealt w/ racism & there can be solidarity in that.
LGBTQ+ kids’ interests does not align w/ their parents’ anti-LGBTQ+ values.

Do you think SCOTUS imagine children having any rights/interests separate from their parents at all?*

*Barring severe examples like physical neglect/abuse & medical neglect *if it is not birth control, abortion, or trans-affirming care being denied*

I suspect Alito would likely side with parents suing their child’s school for using school’s discipline policy to ‘stomp on’ their child’s 1A right to tell their fellow students that they or their gay parents are going to hell for being gay…🥴 Or, say, quoting Lev 20:13 every time they pass them😒

*hugs* ❤️

Doesn’t answer my ?. Also, sexually active teens is not a new phenomenon. My relatives were teen having sex in the 50s. Even if all states raised age of consent to 18, teens should not be criminally charged for putting X in their body IF not illegal for adults. Adults enabling it, sure, not teens.