Is everybody here familiar with the literature that examines the effect of legalized abortion on crime?
Steven Levitt at University of Chicago is one of the better known proponents. He co-authored the book Freakonomics.
Smerconish has been talking about it again since the SCOTUS leak...
The link didn't work correctly...but he starts at about 2:50 on it.
As an aside: I worked on a project in a prior life with Levitt and their work was ridiculously priced, and ultimately delivered no value. Good work if you can get it.
(...) Per the NYT, which discusses the Texas bounty statute; the basic concept applies to similar initiatives now being mulled by other no-choice states:
The new law in Texas effectively banning most abortions has ignited widespread controversy and debate, in part because of the mechanism it uses to enforce the restrictions: deputizing ordinary people to sue those involved in performing abortions and giving them a financial incentive to do so.
The law establishes a kind of bounty system. If these vigilante plaintiffs are successful, the law allows them to collect cash judgments of $10,000 â and their legal fees â from those they sue. If they lose, they do not have to pay the defendantsâ legal costs.
â¦
The enforcement provision has generated backing from those seeking to limit abortion rights but confusion and criticism among supporters of abortion rights.
âWhen the law first came out and I was reading it, I thought I was missing something,â said Mary Ziegler, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law who specializes in the history of reproductive law. âIt almost seemed like anyone could sue anyone â and that didnât seem right. But it was. It really is that extraordinary.â
Now, the incentives the Texas law and the model legislation establish is based on the same concept behind class action suits, which incentivize attorneys to pursue certain cases. But itâs not altogether unusual in other contexts. IIRC, California has a consumer protection that allows for similar third party suits. These provisions that incentivize third parties to purse legal claims produce an in terrorem effect. A state may pass a statute but doesnât have to expend resources on enforcement; it relies on third parties to produce results. that accord with the policy preferences of state legislators.
What is unusual is that these state abortion statutes essentially incentivize stalking.
Finally, you've figured his fiendish plan, foiling his future desire for any fun.
Spidey sense picking up on those men who tend to word-salad justify forced birth, with zero science and biology to back them up, tend to be those
who aren't getting any action and want women punished for having sex. Because its not with them.
Men with game and Live partners understand full well the repercussions of sex. Donnie's Dingleberries think they oughta just be able to 'grab' genitalia when they want it without consequences. It's the clitoral-friendly crowd that will win this one.
LOL. It tickles me how so many men are truly oblivious as to how this will affect them.
Court ordered Paternity DNA is a thing, gentlemen. Pretend to turn a blind eye. But you can bet the Republicans' ideas of what's uppermost in Voters Minds will dramatically change.
Barely the beginning of July 2022. Guess how many times the words: "I'm late" or "I'm pregnant" will come up just by the end of August. Not just thousands, but Millions.
Husbands and Fathers of Daughters will begin to hear that phrase too often enough to slash the Republican Party's self described 'priorities.'
It's a win-win for States to fund State agencies and Overwhelmed Foster Care Systems.
Did you really think that Republicans would force their aristo-political class to pay to raise these unplanned babies? Did you really believe the wealthy class gives an excrement about the average dude in America?
Aw sweetcakes. You're so gullible.
"Ti-i-i-ime is on my side, yes it is..." â Rolling Stones
Not true at any level. To quote R_D ... Fuck you ... (and the horse you rode in on).
Leave me out of your denialism, you miserable fuck.
Red_Dragon wrote:
kurtster wrote:
There is no and never was a constitutional right to an abortion. There is and always has been a constitutional right to carry or bear arms. It is a first class right. That right does not end at the front door of one's home. It extends outside beyond the home as well. That is the essence of the ruling.
The Constitution is designed to limit the government's ability to limit the rights of the citizens. Not the other way around.
So, make sure those kids are born so that they can be slaughtered in second grade. Fuck you.
Deny that. Every other word out of your mouth is an F bomb ...
To quote R_D ... Fuck you ... (and the horse you rode in on).
I won't go so far as to claim that you hate Obama because he's black but I can't recall your posting anything complimentary about the man. You seem to go out of your way to criticize him, though. IIRC you view the bailout of the economy and the Big Three automakers on Obama's watch as a Wall Street bailout with no benefit for the average American. And the ACA is a big sop for insurance companies.
Another case in point: your question about why Obama didn't push for federal law on abortion rights. Let's blame Barack! A shame you didn't try to address my points about those times btw. Were you in a coma back then, Kurt? Have you forgotten what the hell happened or are you just sticking to what Donnie and Tucker are telling you?
I also consider Trump's hatred of Obama and your knee-jerk adherence to Trump's views. So no, you ain't fooling no one.
Yes, they should have, even if it would have meant we'd be listening to you and your fellow minions screeching about government overreach and states' rights. Frankly, they also underestimated the extent of fascism in this country, which is likely another reason for their lack of action.
Democrats in Congress are not nearly as monolithic and sheep-like as their Republican counterparts. An attempt at passing federal law permitting abortion would have split the party. And why would Obama try to touch that third-rail issue when Roe v. Wade stood and SCOTUS was not yet lousy with lying idiots like Barrett and Crybaby Kavanaugh?
Finally, perhaps Kurt doesn't remember that Obama was pretty f*ckin' busy trying to save the American economy from complete collapse. Dubya's Secretary of Treasury (and former chairman of Goldman Sachs) Hank Paulson could tell Kurt all about that.
Oh, and Obama got the ACA passed. But Obama's a black guy whom Trump hates so Kurt hates him too.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 27, 2022 - 2:30pm
maryte wrote:
Yes, they should have, even if it would have meant we'd be listening to you and your fellow minions screeching about government overreach and states' rights. Frankly, they also underestimated the extent of fascism in this country, which is likely another reason for their lack of action.
I think there are many of us who fall into that group!
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Jun 27, 2022 - 2:12pm
kurtster wrote:
my last thought on this subject ...
If this was such an important issue to democrats, why did they not pass a law in Congress during the Obama administration when they had a super majority and passage would be guaranteed ?
Obviously, to me, they had more to gain by keep making it an issue than by resolving it.
Have fun. I'm going back to playing with music.
Yes, they should have, even if it would have meant we'd be listening to you and your fellow minions screeching about government overreach and states' rights. Frankly, they also underestimated the extent of fascism in this country, which is likely another reason for their lack of action.
Your point being?
. 
