SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Rasulis]

Been largely off MMO Champion for a bit now and will likely be mostly off for a while longer but figured I would drop in this little part.

The NC GOP has overridden Coopers veto with the Democrat who flipped voting against what she campaigned on.

Can say a few things about this.

1) Every drug dealer will have this in supply long before it takes effect on July 1st. And while I don’t drink or smoke or anything like that I had access to weed easier than I could get legal stuff from the store growing up.

This will be even easier to get.

2) The GOP has ensured a huge wave against them next election in this state. Let’s see the traitors NC Supreme Court has given enough ability to gerrymander and disenfranchise voters to beat it temporarily because they will have ensured the lost this in the long term.

3) Depending on how long this lasts could even see the military slowly start winding down operations or at the very least not open new operations in Fort Bragg or Pope Air Force Base due to how those locations can start negatively impacting peoples willingness to join or stay or how it can impact the readiness of the troops who are serving from the issues it can cause with their families.

So, overall, they will not have the impact they pretend it will to the families around here as the will have ways around it and, along with everything stated above, any police that attempt to enforce it knows they will make themselves into even bigger enemies of the population they are supposed to be protecting and will be treated and distrusted accordingly.

Idaho’s murky abortion law is driving doctors out of the state

The state of Idaho is in the beginning stages of a grand exodus. Doctors – specifically, those who care for pregnant women and perform abortions – are fleeing the state due to new abortion restrictions.

Doctors like Lauren Miller, who has been treating women and performing abortions in Boise for the last five years. Her greatest fear? “Being tried as a felon simply for saving someone’s life,” she told CNN.

Miller specializes in maternal-fetal medicine at the hospital where she works and handles high-risk pregnancies. She treats complications such as ectopic pregnancies, where a fertilized egg is outside the uterus, pre-eclampsia and other dangerous conditions.

An abortion can still be performed if the mother’s life is in danger, and in the case of rape or incest, but only after a police report has been filed and provided to the doctor. Even then, it’s restricted to the first trimester. But Miller says the law is still somewhat murky.

“We have a death exception and that is it without any other guidelines,” she said. “If I don’t act fast enough to save your life, prevent you from getting septic, I could be liable for civil cases … malpractice. But if I act too quickly and I’m not 100% certain that the patient is going to die from the complication she’s sustaining, then I could be guilty of a felony.”

“We don’t know what that bar is and no one wants to be the guinea pig first test case of that,” Miller told CNN.

State Representative Brent J. Crane, the lead negotiator on the bill, characterized the law as “a work in progress,” acknowledging to CNN that lawmakers are going to have to “come back and do more work to define what constitutes a risk to a mother’s life in those highly nuanced situations.”

Miller, who is also head of the Idaho Coalition for Safe Reproductive Health, calls it “moral injury.” It saddens her that she cannot provide the care she’s been trained to offer.

“It goes against what we’re taught as physicians to protect the health of our patients,” she said.

So, she decided to move her practice to Colorado, where abortion is still legal. And she’s not the only one leaving.

Of the 117 doctors she informally surveyed in Idaho, 75 answered “yes” or “maybe” when asked if they were considering leaving the state at least in part because of the abortion laws.

Dr. Kylie Cooper, who worked alongside Miller, has already moved with her family out of Idaho and is now practicing in Minnesota, where abortion is legal.

Back in Idaho, Miller says five of the nine remaining full-time maternal-fetal medicine physicians in the state will have left by the end of this year.

These are the doctors who deal with the most significant pregnancy complications, an essential service to their patients.

Jim Souza, the chief physician executive at St. Luke’s Medical Center in Boise, told CNN: “We’re at the beginning of the collapse of an entire system of care.”

He likened it to a Jenga tower: “You can pull out certain planks and the tower still stands,” he said. “But pull out too many planks or certain planks and the whole thing falls … unfortunately that’s the position we’re in right now.”

Souza says that Idaho has already lost many of its maternal-fetal medicine physicians.

“If the momentum doesn’t shift, and we continue to pull planks out of the Jenga tower of this system of care,” he said, “there’s no question that that there will be bad perinatal outcomes for moms and babies. You need these providers in order to provide the safety net.”

And because there are no ob-gyn residencies in Idaho, finding doctors willing to relocate given the abortion laws on the books is a real challenge.

Still, Souza told CNN, “I’m an optimist at heart.”

While doctors in Idaho are already warning the public about the risks these abortion restrictions pose to the health of expectant mothers, there won’t be any data to show the real impact these laws have on the maternal mortality rate in Idaho.

That’s because this July, Idaho’s state legislature is due to sunset the Maternal Mortality Review Committee, which tracks pregnancy deaths.

In light of that, Miller warned, “We won’t see the bad outcomes that occur secondary to these laws being in place. It’s like we’re trying to hide that information from the public so we can’t see the repercussions of not having access to safe abortion care. I have no doubt that the mortality rate will rise.”

What's the latest maternal mortality rate number in Idaho?

Report: Deaths among pregnant women in Idaho more than doubled in 2020

The new report sent Idaho’s pregnancy-related mortality ratio as calculated by the committee skyrocketing from 13.6 to 41.8 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births within one year of pregnancy.

[The Stormbringer]

Idaho’s murky abortion law is driving doctors out of the state



What's the latest maternal mortality rate number in Idaho?

Report: Deaths among pregnant women in Idaho more than doubled in 2020

"Oh shit, pregnancy related deaths are about to skyrocket! What do we do?!"
"Calm down, calm down. It's simple. We just get rid of the committee that reviews and tracks that sort of thing. Just hide the info and no one will know."
"That's genius, sir!"
"I know, I know. Now please arrange to transfer this money, my mistress needs to go out of state to get an abortion."
"Right away, sir!"
"And make sure you use our campaign money for it! Don't want this coming out of my personal account."

[Poopymonster]

"Oh shit, pregnancy related deaths are about to skyrocket! What do we do?!"
"Calm down, calm down. It's simple. We just get rid of the committee that reviews and tracks that sort of thing. Just hide the info and no one will know."
"That's genius, sir!"
"I know, I know. Now please arrange to transfer this money, my mistress needs to go out of state to get an abortion."
"Right away, sir!"
"And make sure you use our campaign money for it! Don't want this coming out of my personal account."

Off Topic:
When checking this early in the AM half asleep, anyone else misread the title as "Skroe vs Wade"?

On Topic: See Covid Deaths in Florida. It can be done, it will be done.

[Rasulis]

There is going to be some repercussions from GOP single-minded approach to abortion. We are starting to see those in local elections.

Donna Deegan just became mayor of Jacksonville, Florida. Which was the largest US city with a GOP mayor.

Moboblade won Colorado Springs mayoral race. The position that the GOP had held for 45 years.

- - - Updated - - -

"Oh shit, pregnancy related deaths are about to skyrocket! What do we do?!"
"Calm down, calm down. It's simple. We just get rid of the committee that reviews and tracks that sort of thing. Just hide the info and no one will know."
"That's genius, sir!"
"I know, I know. Now please arrange to transfer this money, my mistress needs to go out of state to get an abortion."
"Right away, sir!"
"And make sure you use our campaign money for it! Don't want this coming out of my personal account."

It already skyrocketed. With two-third of the OB/Gyn, and 5 out the 9 high-risk pregnancy doctors in Idaho leaving, the mortality rate will get much higher.

[Edge-]

Idaho’s murky abortion law is driving doctors out of the state



What's the latest maternal mortality rate number in Idaho?

Report: Deaths among pregnant women in Idaho more than doubled in 2020

With this being a fairly consistent news story across multiple red states, you'd think that maybe Republicans don't actually care that their poorly written, vague laws are actively causing avoidable harm to pregnant women and girls.

We keep being told this isn't the point, that they don't hate women, that they care about life, but their actions continually contradict that claim. Almost as if the claim isn't true!

I snark, but this is beyond infuriating that this is, even while retaining draconian limitations on bodily autonomy and accomplishing the stated Republican goals, an extremely fixable problem that Republicans just continue to choose to ignore and not fix.

[LilSaihah]

Here is the thing. A common anti-abortion stance, probably the more common one is that they are OK with abortions in case of rape.
If you are OK with abortions in case of rape, then logically you place no value in the life of the fetus. The fetus is BLAMELESS in case of rape. Rather your main concern is that a woman who consented in having sex is liable. It inherently is a misogynistic position that views pregnancy as punishment for presumed promiscuity.

Not necessarily, you're just placing a value on rape, and rape + pregnancy > child > pregnancy.
Dunno if I'd necessarily agree with it. I don't think it's a controversial opinion to say that rape isn't nothing, though.

Honestly I think trying to get into the ethics and morality of it is a bit of a red herring when I don't know how the hell you're going to implement such a distinction in practice. Are you supposed to prosecute a rape case to a conviction before you can get an abortion (which I understand can be a really difficult crime to actually prosecute)? Do you just have to make the accusation? Maybe someone's already proposed a law about the exactitudes but it seems dumb to me.

Maybe you could put the rapist up for murder if the woman gets an abortion?

[Endus]

Not necessarily, you're just placing a value on rape, and rape + pregnancy > child > pregnancy.
Dunno if I'd necessarily agree with it. I don't think it's a controversial opinion to say that rape isn't nothing, though.

That's framing the logical issue incorrectly. Here's the breakdown of what's actually being argued, from the "I'm pro-life but allow exceptions for rape and incest" side of things;

1> A fetus is a person from some arbitrary point, usually conception.
2> Taking an action that leads to a person's death without it being a defensive act against a lethal threat (self defense, enemy soldiers in war, etc) is unacceptable.
3> Therefore, abortion should be forbidden, because the act leads to a person's death (the fetus'), and the cause is not defending against a lethal threat.

That's the base argument. Now, adding rape and incest exceptions. Neither is a case where they pose a lethal threat to the pregnant person (they might have in the initial act, obviously, but not in the pregnancy). So they can't be justified under Premise 2. In fact, since Premise 1 isn't making a special category of person for a fetus which has lesser rights and protections (that's the point), the idea of an "exception" for rape and incest shouldn't even see a limit at birth; pro-life people reject that birth is a dividing line in this, that's their point. So if you're okay with killing a fetus at 12 weeks because a father raped his 13 year old daughter and got her pregnant, your same argument justifies killing that 13-year old's child when it turns two years old. Or 8. Or 32. There's an exception for people born by rape or incest, you see. They're not really people, so you can morally/ethically kill them and it's fine.

And that's why so many of us on the pro-choice side find the idea of these "exceptions" so utterly damning. Either the person is the kind of brutalist bigot who thinks rape and incest babies aren't people and don't deserve rights, or they don't believe the fetus is actually a person before birth so violating Premise #1 isn't actually a moral problem for them; they only pretend to believe that premise for some other reason (usually, misogyny or religious extremism or both), and will choose to ignore it when abiding by it challenges their base morality too strongly, as in the case of forcing a rape or incest victim to carry their unwanted pregnancy to term.

And I'm pretty sure it's 99.9% the latter. It's dishonest, and they're effectively lying to your face about their views, and we don't generally take very kindly to shit like that.

[Gestopft]

Sure, it would only impact the 1%, but apparently no law must touch it and that's final. It sounds a little extreme to me, but I have been reading and digesting this forum's earnest comments on the issue.

As has been explained to you many times, when you ban that 1% (with exceptions), what ends up happening is that doctors have to weigh their own medical expertise as to the risk to the mother against the ignorance of (specifically Republican) politicians' opinions as to whether or not a woman's life was in danger. When doctors have a potential lawsuit hanging over their head every time a complicated third trimester life-threatening case comes around, the result is increased inaction by medical professionals, and an increased number of women who either die as a result or end up unable to have any future children as a result of said inaction. It costs far more women's lives and potential fertilities than the number of potential babies that would be saved at that stage.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Then make it illegal but for extreme circumstances.

This sounds reasonable, but your hypothetical opinion doesn't matter. Conservatives either have or are trying really really hard to make it illegal across all weeks. The only reason conservatives are even talking about this idiotic take of "THEY'RE DOING IT UP TO THE MONTH BEFORE BIRTH" is to create faux outrage. The entire point that you and other conservatives even say this is to create outrage among stupid people who don't do research on the subject. There is no reason to make it illegal if it doesn't happen. And seeing as how it doesn't happen, conservatives are trying to springboard "make all abortion illegal" off of "THEY'RE KILLING BABIES THE WEEK BEFORE BIRTH!!!!!!!!!!111one"

[Xyonai]

This sounds reasonable, but your hypothetical opinion doesn't matter. Conservatives either have or are trying really really hard to make it illegal across all weeks. The only reason conservatives are even talking about this idiotic take of "THEY'RE DOING IT UP TO THE MONTH BEFORE BIRTH" is to create faux outrage. The entire point that you and other conservatives even say this is to create outrage among stupid people who don't do research on the subject. There is no reason to make it illegal if it doesn't happen. And seeing as how it doesn't happen, conservatives are trying to springboard "make all abortion illegal" off of "THEY'RE KILLING BABIES THE WEEK BEFORE BIRTH!!!!!!!!!!111one"

And he's saying this like 'Abortions' at a certain point weren't already illegal. The reason there aren't laws about 'abortions' at up to 32(?) weeks is because, at that point, it's a baby that can - hypothetically - survive on its own when removed from the mother so they get all the shiny legal protections a normal human being gets; unless they became suddenly nonviable or a development happened that would threaten the mother's life if they weren't aborted.

[Paranoid Android]

After switching parties, North Carolina Rep. Tricia Cotham helps NC GOP secure exact number of votes needed to override veto, pass abortion law

What a piece of human fesces.



Here is Tricia Cotham on the 72 hour Informed Consent Bill in 2015. Now shockingly she gives a good story about how this affected her when she had problems with a miscarriage. Generally, even for conservatives this is the only time they are sympathetic when it happens to them. Well, she said "Eff That" and not only switched parties to Republican but voted along party lines for the override veto.

We discussed her already that she ran in that district to protect Pro-Choice rights along with 54% of NC voters who are strongly opposed to restrictions.

To inform people here, Cotham's switch gave Republicans a Veto Proof majority. Why it was important beside her voting on it.

[Adamas102]

The writer is stating Dr Hern's views, "Hern, though, believes that the viability of a fetus is determined not by gestational age but by a woman’s willingness to carry it." It's included to contrast Hern's views with others that might define viability to be somewhere from 24 to 28 weeks.

The article mentions a patient that applied for a late-term abortion because her husband had killed himself and she was suddenly broke. Then it states "The reason doesn't really matter to Hern." That's a good litmus test for whether you firmly believe the healthy baby should not be aborted.

The existence of Dr Hern and others really give the lie to "no doctor would do it, therefore no legislation is necessary." He's one of a class of absolutists or hardliners that hail from the days where inducing fetal demise before removing the still-living unborn baby from his or her mother was not actually done. He certainly gives reason to have viability in law, and proscribing "the reason doesn't really matter" belief of some abortion-performing doctors. I don't hinge all my beliefs on abortion due to a glaring counterexample; this is only necessary to help rebut the "doctors won't do it" insufficient argument against legislation. Evidence is helpful, and maybe some people only lacked that to change their mind.

First off, you seem to be conflating the idea of a "viable fetus" with a "healthy baby". Viability is ABSOLUTELY not an indication of health for a fetus. Basically it just means that the fetus is far enough along in terms of lung development that it isn't going to immediately die as soon as it's delivered. Even for parents who are hoping for a baby, having to deliver prior to 34 weeks is a pretty significant deal. Having to delivering at 28 weeks is catastrophic. Extreme preterm babies are anything but healthy, and if they do manage to survive it has to be at a facility with the equipment and means to keep the baby alive for months as it continues to develop the necessary organ function to survive on its own. You keep forgetting that the 80% survivability figure that you keep citing is "with advanced medical care".

Secondly, you seem to conveniently forget the following quote from the article about Dr. Hern:

He applies the same principle to all of his prospective patients: If he thinks it’s safer for them to have an abortion than to carry and deliver the baby, he’ll take the case—usually up until around 32 weeks, with some rare later exceptions, because of the increased risk of hemorrhage and other life-threatening conditions beyond that point.

For a start, it certainly blows the whole idiotic "abortions right before birth" scenario if even the most "extreme", absolutist, hardliner doctor has a cutoff of 32 weeks. The other important part to note is that an assessment is made (for ALL prospective patients) if it's safer to abort or carry and deliver. Obviously the health of the patient comes first. As has been noted many times now, the assessment of the doctor shouldn't be impeded by politicians who aren't even in the room and don't have the expertise to weigh in anyway.

So no, doctors are clearly not aborting healthy babies. A fetus at 32 weeks development is NOT a healthy baby. Even babies born between 34-37 weeks might need to be admitted into NICU to monitor for breathing problem, brain bleeds, hypothermia, and several other possible issues.

[The Stormbringer]

That's framing the logical issue incorrectly. Here's the breakdown of what's actually being argued, from the "I'm pro-life but allow exceptions for rape and incest" side of things;

1> A fetus is a person from some arbitrary point, usually conception.
2> Taking an action that leads to a person's death without it being a defensive act against a lethal threat (self defense, enemy soldiers in war, etc) is unacceptable.
3> Therefore, abortion should be forbidden, because the act leads to a person's death (the fetus'), and the cause is not defending against a lethal threat.

That's the base argument. Now, adding rape and incest exceptions. Neither is a case where they pose a lethal threat to the pregnant person (they might have in the initial act, obviously, but not in the pregnancy). So they can't be justified under Premise 2. In fact, since Premise 1 isn't making a special category of person for a fetus which has lesser rights and protections (that's the point), the idea of an "exception" for rape and incest shouldn't even see a limit at birth; pro-life people reject that birth is a dividing line in this, that's their point. So if you're okay with killing a fetus at 12 weeks because a father raped his 13 year old daughter and got her pregnant, your same argument justifies killing that 13-year old's child when it turns two years old. Or 8. Or 32. There's an exception for people born by rape or incest, you see. They're not really people, so you can morally/ethically kill them and it's fine.

And that's why so many of us on the pro-choice side find the idea of these "exceptions" so utterly damning. Either the person is the kind of brutalist bigot who thinks rape and incest babies aren't people and don't deserve rights, or they don't believe the fetus is actually a person before birth so violating Premise #1 isn't actually a moral problem for them; they only pretend to believe that premise for some other reason (usually, misogyny or religious extremism or both), and will choose to ignore it when abiding by it challenges their base morality too strongly, as in the case of forcing a rape or incest victim to carry their unwanted pregnancy to term.

And I'm pretty sure it's 99.9% the latter. It's dishonest, and they're effectively lying to your face about their views, and we don't generally take very kindly to shit like that.

Thanks for laying it out like this. I kind of got what you meant before, but this helps clear it up quite a bit, and... yeah, now I think those exceptions are fucking stupid for even more reasons. Just get rid of abortion bans, period.

- - - Updated - - -

After switching parties, North Carolina Rep. Tricia Cotham helps NC GOP secure exact number of votes needed to override veto, pass abortion law

What a piece of human fesces.

Here is Tricia Cotham on the 72 hour Informed Consent Bill in 2015. Now shockingly she gives a good story about how this affected her when she had problems with a miscarriage. Generally, even for conservatives this is the only time they are sympathetic when it happens to them. Well, she said "Eff That" and not only switched parties to Republican but voted along party lines for the override veto.

We discussed her already that she ran in that district to protect Pro-Choice rights along with 54% of NC voters who are strongly opposed to restrictions.

To inform people here, Cotham's switch gave Republicans a Veto Proof majority. Why it was important beside her voting on it.

Switching parties while in-office should be fucking illegal. Or if you ran your campaign as one party, and the night before the election you switch parties, that sort of shit should be illegal too. You should have to stick with the party and the promises you made to get into that position, not make a 180 and decide, "Teehee, I had a 'change of heart'!" bullshit.

[Paranoid Android]

Switching parties while in-office should be fucking illegal. Or if you ran your campaign as one party, and the night before the election you switch parties, that sort of shit should be illegal too. You should have to stick with the party and the promises you made to get into that position, not make a 180 and decide, "Teehee, I had a 'change of heart'!" bullshit.

Having no consequences is horrible.

I read that she might jump districts to another safe red district cause some dude is quitting or running for another office. So that was her play. Her 112th district is now safely Democrat with her winning almost 60% of votes and Mecklenburg County, part of Charlotte and Biden has been at the almost same 60%. So this is a very strong Dem district. Those poor people.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...borah-dorbert/

The article seems to be unpaywalled, and it's worth a read for the kind of heartbreak, suffering, and trauma that a pregnant woman and her husband went through being forced to give birth to a child that at most had a maximum life expectancy of hours. And survived for 90 minutes.

Beyond the emotional and psychological trauma and suffering, there are also financial costs they must deal with, too.

All of this abject suffering could be avoided if Republicans actually gave a shit about tightening up the language and actually trying to protect life. But they won't, because that's never been the goal of their attempts to control women's bodily autonomy. It's always been about punishment and control, as we're seeing with states proposing penalties for women who receive abortion services as part of their health care.

Without functioning kidneys, a fetus with Potter syndrome cannot produce the amniotic fluid that allows the lungs to expand and that cushions the growing body. The babies who survive until birth typically have contracted limbs, club feet and flattened features from being compressed against the uterus wall.

But after Deborah’s 12-hour labor, Milo turned out to be 4 pounds and 12 ounces of perfection, with tiny, flawlessly formed hands and feet and a head of brown hair.

“I thought I had my miracle,” said Peter Rogell, the baby’s grandfather, who attended the delivery. He allowed himself a moment of hope until the obstetrician cut the umbilical cord that for 37 weeks had performed the functions Milo’s underdeveloped lungs and missing kidneys would now take over.

Milo remained blue, swaddled in a blanket hand-knit by his great-grandmother.

He never cried or tried to nurse or even opened his eyes, investing every ounce of energy in intermittent gasps for air.

“That was the beginning of the end,” Rogell said, recalling the persistent gulps that he thought at first were hiccups but turned out to be his grandson’s labored efforts to inhale.

This is functionally torture for these parents. Avoidable, expensive torture. The trauma is purely the result of Republican extremist politicians not caring.

[Cthulhu 2020]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...borah-dorbert/

The article seems to be unpaywalled, and it's worth a read for the kind of heartbreak, suffering, and trauma that a pregnant woman and her husband went through being forced to give birth to a child that at most had a maximum life expectancy of hours. And survived for 90 minutes.

Beyond the emotional and psychological trauma and suffering, there are also financial costs they must deal with, too.

All of this abject suffering could be avoided if Republicans actually gave a shit about tightening up the language and actually trying to protect life. But they won't, because that's never been the goal of their attempts to control women's bodily autonomy. It's always been about punishment and control, as we're seeing with states proposing penalties for women who receive abortion services as part of their health care.



This is functionally torture for these parents. Avoidable, expensive torture. The trauma is purely the result of Republican extremist politicians not caring.

"The cruelty is the point"

-A wise man in regards to conservative policy

[unfilteredJW]

Seriously, causing pain they know they won’t have to suffer through is the point.

It’s the same with the pile of dead children from guns and the pile of dead people from Covid. It’s the goal.

[Masark]

All of this abject suffering could be avoided if Republicans actually gave a shit about tightening up the language and actually trying to protect life.

Stop labouring under the delusion that this is unintended.

[Rasulis]

Stop labouring under the delusion that this is unintended.

No one is under that delusion. At least if they are honest.

We know that, despite their claims that they care about mothers and children, GOP politicians are big fat liars.

Best & Worst States to Have a Baby

Anti-choice states made up 17 of the bottom 20 states.

Infant Mortality Rates

Same story.

Best and Worst States for Maternal Cares

Best states California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Vermont, Washington state.

Worst states Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas.

The same patterns kept repeating themselves.

[Mehrunes]

Well, you've explained yourself pretty fully on your beliefs and I have nothing further to add.


The creation and changing of laws are politics. Every human has a stake in who dies in their early gestational stages. Put simply, you don't get to tell other people that they have no say in it.

Putting aside the part where you used a "who" pronoun that is used to refer to persons in context of fetuses that very much are not persons, given how pregnancy is a subject linked to the bodily autonomy of a woman, which is a human right, pretty much everyone gets to tell people trying to limit someone's human rights that they don't have a say in them.

Republicans are very concerned about groomers but very unconcerned about children being forced to experience traumatic and life-threatening pregnancies.

I have a feeling that you're trying to portray that as an inconsistency in their positions. Which, while being very on-brand for conservatives in general, would only apply here if they railed about actual groomers. But since they changed the meaning of "groomers" to "people that I don't like on the basis of me being a bigoted cunt", where the only children involved are the ones from their favorite appeal to emotions used to conceal their aforementioned bigotry, it isn't the case here.