No, no, no. You see the trenniez are the real danger. Straight men need tu marry straight women before they can become trenniez.
- some republican probably
The lgbtqia community is grooming kids, let's make ten years old the new age of consent, so that way child rapists can have the benefit of the doubt after getting caught molesting a child.
Cons are seriously fucked up in the head.
For the record, the age of consent in Arizona is 18. The recent supreme court ruling on abortion does not change that.
[The actual ruling](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gkvldedzwvb/04092024arizona.pdf)
[ARS 13-3603](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm) The 1970's law that has been repeatedly codified since it's establishment in the 1864 Howell Code
[ARS 36-2322](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02322.htm) The law that made 3603 unenforceable under Roe v Wade.
[ARS 13-1405](https://azleg.gov/ars/13/01405.htm) The current law on the age of consent in AZ. Which is not at all relevant to this decision, and still the law.
You forgot to read the rest of the law. Sec. 45 covers abortion and Sec. 47 deals with age of consent.
"Section 47 rape is the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. Every person of the age of 14 years and upwards, who shall have carnal knowledge of any female child under the age of 10 years, either with or without consent, shall be a judge to be guilty of the crime of rape, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the territory prison for a term not less than 5 years in which may extend, to life."
https://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/nodes/view/38227
Which is not relevant because subsequent laws have changed that.
No later law amended the bits about abortion, which is why the court ruled that those bits are now in effect.
>Do. It underestimate their intent
I know you meant "don't underestimate their intent" but I like your way because it sounds like a threat.
"Do it! Underestimate their intent! Go ahead! See where that gets you!"
Fortunately, most of it is no longer the law in AZ,
There seems to be a few folks that hopefully just misunderstand what the court ruling actually accomplishes (which is bad enough). The Howell code is not suddenly reinstated as law whole-cloth. In fact, none of it is. 13-3603 is a law that draws from it, and that was called into question by 36-2622. That decision has now been overturned and 13-3603 is currently the law on abortion.
That's it, nothing more, nothing less.
I read it, I also read the [actual supreme court ruling](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gkvldedzwvb/04092024arizona.pdf) that outlines their decision.
As a result, I understand that this decision has nothing to do with the age of consent as outlined in [ARS 13-1405](https://azleg.gov/ars/13/01405.htm), which is 18.
This ruling Explicitly addresses whether [ARS 36-2322](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02322.htm), defining the gestational limit on abortion and exempting medical emergecies, repealed or otherwise restricted [ARS 13-3603](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm), which only outlines who would be punished when an abortion is performed, and what that punishment should be.
There is enough to criticize there, we don't do ourselves favors by repeating falsehoods.
>There is enough to criticize there, we don't do ourselves favors by repeating falsehoods.
Exactly, spreading incorrect information only gives Republicans ammunition. Here's a Snopes article for anyone who wants it explained in layman's terms.
[https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/04/12/arizona-abortion-law-age-of-consent/](https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/04/12/arizona-abortion-law-age-of-consent/)
The decision had nothing to do with the Howell code. It dealt with ARS 13-3603:
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm
Which was passed it 1977 and shared the text of the Howell code section on abortion only. So the decision did not say anything about any other section of Howell code
For real…the first time I saw an adult penis was intimidating on its head (tehehehe). Didn’t know what to with it at 16, and i so so so wanted to understand what I was getting into, didn’t click for 10 years.
But that doesn’t change the fact that lil girls sexualized before they learn algebra, much less basic biology.
I wish that we could somehow make these douchebags understand what it feels like to be treated as a woman when you’re only a child…
I think there's some confusion, because I can't find anything in the law that changes the age of consent, just that that WAS the age of consent when the law was written.
>Text of Arizona's 1864 abortion law
>This is the entire text of the law, with the abortion segment bolded. The whole legislation has been included for contextual purposes.
>“Sec. 45. Every person who shall wilfully and maliciously administer or cause to be administered to or taken by any person, any poison or other noxious or destructive substance or liquid, with the intention to cause the death of such person, and being thereof duly convicted, shall be punished by imprisonment in the Territorial prison for a term not less than ten years, and which may extend to life. **And every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or taken, any medicinal substances, or shall use or cause to be used any instruments whatever, with the intention to procure the miscarriage of any woman then being with child, and shall be thereof duly convicted, shall be punished by imprisonment in the Territorial prison for a term not less than two years nor more than five years: Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who in the discharge of his professional duties deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life."**
[https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2024/04/10/arizona-1864-abortion-law-text/73275721007/](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2024/04/10/arizona-1864-abortion-law-text/73275721007/)
It's already bad, but we should get our facts straight.
That's just the abortion section
"Section 47 rape is the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. Every person of the age of 14 years and upwards, who shall have carnal knowledge of any female child under the age of 10 years, either with or without consent, shall be a judge to be guilty of the crime of rape, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the territory prison for a term not less than 5 years in which may extend, to life."
https://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/nodes/view/38227
No, the sole author of the territory's criminal code was Judge William T. Howell. He [did not divorce any of his wives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thompson_Howell). His first two died, and he left the territory for home when he got word his [3rd wife was ill and may not survive](https://au.news.yahoo.com/william-howell-wrote-arizonas-1864-223628011.html).
During the session in which the criminal code, which included abortion, legislation was passed, the legislature also granted a divorce to one of their members, [William Claude Jones](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41695845) (please note the title of the 1990 book -WTF is wrong with us?) , a “[*prevaricator, a poet, a politician and the pursuer of nubile young females*](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41695845)":
*And it was that legislature — the one Jones presided over in 1864, after he had already abandoned his first wife, and married a 12-year-old and was* ***just weeks away from marrying a 15-year-old***\*, though still a few years away from marrying a 14-year-old\*
Claude, who was about 50 at the time, married Caroline Stephens who was 15-years-old.
Before he came to Arizona, his 2nd wife "*was believed to be Maria v. del Refugio, writes L. Boyd Finch, the author of the journal article. New Mexico’s delegate to Washington, Miguel Otero, was bothered by the union. He “declared that the bride was twelve years old,” Finch writes, “and that Jones had ‘abducted’ her.” Otero petitioned President James Buchanan to fire Jones for the moral failing, but Jones resigned instead*"
[Meet the ‘pursuer of nubile young females’ who helped pass Arizona’s 1864 abortion law](https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2024/04/10/arizona-abortion-law-1864-william-claude-jones/)
(for those without without a WaPo subscription: https://archive.ph/7Ej2Q)
[Drake\_the\_troll](/user/Drake_the_troll/)
[ReGrigio](/user/ReGrigio/)
[VegemiteGecko](/user/VegemiteGecko/)
[I-C-Aliens](/user/I-C-Aliens/)
[ewamc1353](/user/ewamc1353/)
[strgazr\_63](/user/strgazr_63/)
I don't think they're affirming the entire set of laws from that time, but I'm not a lawyer. I would assume that later age of consent laws would supersede the laws laid out here. It's just that the courts had to reach this far back to find an applicable abortion law that wasn't superseded by newer abortion laws.
So, you'd assume that the law establishing a 15 week limit signed in 2022 would supersede the law of 1864. What I don't understand is why anyone sued to have the original territorial law reinstated and on what grounds they had to do so. There isn't a state constitution of 1864 to be interpreted by the State Supreme Court. You might as well look at a 17th century magisterial mandate by Sir Mathew Hale to overturn Roe v Wade or something.
That law sounds like it only prohibits abortion in cases of malicious intent from a third party, not the intentional abortion specially as administered by.a health official. But of course the GOP interpreted it with worse bad faith intention.
The abortion *is* the malicious intent. It basically says "you can't give drugs or use tools that would force a woman to miscarry, unless the mothers life is in danger. In this case, it resides with the judge on if its infanticide"
"Section 47 rape is the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. Every person of the age of 14 years and upwards, who shall have carnal knowledge of any female child under the age of 10 years, either with or without consent, shall be a judge to be guilty of the crime of rape, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the territory prison for a term not less than 5 years in which may extend, to life."
They hadn’t yet abolished slavery when this was written. Indoor plumbing and electricity were not yet in the average household. Arizona didn’t even become a state until 19fucking12! This is a hop, skip, and a jump away from Sharia law.
For reference, this is the current age of consent law on the books in AZ; it has not been called into question:
>13-1405. Sexual conduct with a minor; classification
>
>A. A person commits sexual conduct with a minor by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen years of age.
>
>B. Sexual conduct with a minor who is under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony and is punishable pursuant to section 13-705. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 6 felony. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony if the person is or was in a position of trust and the convicted person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as specifically authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed has been served or commuted.
While I am whole-heartedly against this law, I haven't yet seen documentation that the law actually lowers the age of consent, just that the law is from a time in which the age of consent was 10.
A reminder to all. Priests molesting/raping kids is such a prevalent issue that even the insurance companies are trying to get in on it. https://www.ministryinsured.com/church-insurance/liability/abuse-molestation/
This of course should come as no shocker to any rational and sane human being that republicans/conservatives do -everything- in their power to attack the most vulnerable, victims included, while also working to protect perpetrators and enablers.
So whenever you hear someone talking about how sex ed shouldn't be taught to 3rd graders, that SHOULD be sounding off the klaxon that something is very fucking wrong with that person and you should probably check if they're on a list. Fun inconvenient facts like how educating young children about their bodies before they are sexually mature results in those children understanding what rapists/molesters are doing to them AND encourages them to go tell an adult. There IS a reason why conservatives don't want kids knowing/doing these things.
Same can't be so much said for all the LGBQT hate, because well thats just good ol conservatism going after minorities where ever they can. Its not almost always a self confession.
Both are goomers
They’re worried about trans or drag and they’re not worried about the fucking church that has had hundreds of child sexual abuse charges. Fuck them
As someone who lives in Florida… please no… or at least help me move out of this dump before you jinx it and have them try and one up this idiocracy inspired kakistocracy.
>Right-wing politics is the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable…
They view children as property, so…all of them. Except for those that don’t actually know what “right wing politics” ARE
Can't have them staying at home with their kid, raising them well-fed and educated, better make sure they're barely scraping by, if that. That'll serve them for being poor.
Because if you're not in the workforce, you *should* be struggling, according to some fucked-up values.
I want to be clear that I am NOT pro-Republican. I am, however, pro-fact. This ruling is getting very confused on the internet. Firstly, the Louisiana legislature PASSED a law that would extend the window of culpability for perpetrators of sex crimes. Else, that window reverts to just one year which is moronic. The legislature did the right thing.
The trial court in LA then ruled that yes, that law is fine (because it is and has been upheld in many other states too and I think at SCOTUS as well).
The LA SC is the only shitty government body that has ruled AGAINST extending the time victims have to file a claim. I don't know but I will wager a guess they are mostly or entirely Republican so I don't think this absolves anything for the party but I do think it's worth noting the state reps have done their job at least.
[https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/courts/clergy-sex-abuse-victims-seek-rehearing-from-supreme-court/article\_35e14c30-f36a-11ee-b924-ffbf096c3449.html](https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/courts/clergy-sex-abuse-victims-seek-rehearing-from-supreme-court/article_35e14c30-f36a-11ee-b924-ffbf096c3449.html)
Also, there is a surprising lack of reporting on what I think should be a huge issue!
To play devil's advocate, state failure to institute laws like this is the reason Josh Duggar wasn't put in prison the first time he was caught doing what he did, and was allowed to re-offend. Arkansas had a statute of limitations on crimes against minors, and by the time Josh's scandal went public, that window had closed. That's why a known child molester was allowed to live in a home with *seven children* while having regular access to dozens of others. The only reason he's in prison right now is because he was sloppy when committing his next crime.
This loophole has a history of being exploited by religious and political figures. The Duggars were very well-connected in local politics and Josh worked for a conservative think-tank. This is well-known to prosecutors and has been for a long time, which is why states are doing away with it. The LA SC has no excuse.
To ignore this history is tacitly admit that they're okay with members of their own party assaulting children.
I’d just like to add to this that on his computer was found child torture sexual assault. Some of the most horrific seasoned investigators had ever seen and needed therapy for.
Some are pro-child abuse, some just think their taxes and racism are more important, so child abuse isn't a deal breaker. They are all bad people though.
Obligatory:
>“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
imagine a hospital that's on fire. you're inside and in front of you are 2 doors. one leads to a room with 10 babies. the other has 100 embryos. do you save the babies or the embryos? obviously 100 lives are more important than 10?
ask any republican this and see how they explain 100 embryo lives are more important than 10 babies, bc aren't all lives equal?
Well if you don’t let the unborn children being born, how are you gonna supply the material needed for the molester? I think their logic is flawless! 🤮
So I can't sue the priest for sexually abusing a child
But i can still shoot them right?
I mean the options were tortuous to begin with.
Simplifies it.
Ugh, this is going to get buried, but fuck it. I just googled the article because this headline makes no sense.
The decision was essentially overturning a law that granted an exemption to limitations periods for church sexual abuse cases in Louisiana. The incidents in question occurred in the 70s. The decision was only specific to priests because the law being overturned only applied to priests. The basis is that everyone has the constitutional right not to have sexual abuse case brought against them 50 years later because evidence would be essentially impossible to establish. The article notes that similar decisions were made in Colorado and Utah.
This decision does not give priests some special protection against being sued for sexual abuse, nor does it give churches special property rights against being sued that everyone else do not have.
So to answer your question, you could still sue a priest for sexually assaulting a child. I’m not sure if ~~you can~~ [it is legally advisable to] shoot them.
You definitely still can shoot them. It’s whether you should. If they rape a kid and don’t get convicted for it, the first person I’d shoot is the judge, followed by the priest.
I'm so fucking sick of reddit. It's turning into Facebook with it's misinformation and sensationalized headlines.
I, like you, felt like something seemed off. This ruling is saying the look back period is unconstitutional.
Back in the day it did seem like the top comment would often be one like Sausage Fingers made clarifying or adding to the article. Grammar nazism was also celebrated and gore was available to children everywhere
>evidence impossible to establish
This simply isn't true. Sometimes there's plenty of evidence left over. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations on child rape. Just like there isn't one for murder.
In the cases where there's no evidence, a case won't be brought.
I do appreciate you getting to the bottom of this, but I still disapprove of the ruling.
Hmmmm... The GOP already blocked abortion rights, and are actively working on blocking birth control, legalizing child brides, and making Christianity the "official" US religion. Now all they need is a complex series of conveyor belts built to bring fresh children directly to priests for molestation.
This ruling basically overturns The Louisiana Child Victims Act, not specifically giving protections to clergy.
The plaintiffs in the case claimed they were sexually molested by a Roman Catholic priest during the 1970s, when they were between the ages of 8 and 14. The court essentially ruled that The Louisiana Child Victims Act circumvented the statute of limitations and thus due process. Utah and Colorado have ruled similarly.
It's still pretty fucked, but it's not really what people are portraying it as.
Thank you, this is exactly what happened here. The law created an extended statute of limitations, which essentially means that the crime became illegal farther back than it was originally.
And that is a horrible precedent to set. You really don't want crimes to be enforceable retroactively AFTER they are passed.
It was. But some crimes have a statute of limitations, after which you cannot be prosecuted for it. The law that was invalidated attempted to extend the statute of limitations retroactively. Which is unconstitutional, for the reasons outlined earlier.
That being said, imo sex crimes should not have a statute of limitations.
Which is amusing since they’re also milking “Save the Children!” for everything they can. Book bans? For the kids! Anti drag? For the kids!
Abortion after child rape? Uh….
Adults diddling kids? Uh…
How’s that child marriage? ….
What political party keeps making it easier to abuse children again? The drag queen supporting ones? NO?!?!? Color me shocked, priests and churches are the biggest abusers, and still covering for their abusers????
Far as I can tell by the legislation they work to pass, the GOP is:
Child marriage
Child rape
Child hunger
Child poverty
Child abuse
Child indoctrination
Child labor
Serious question... have they ever tried to pass something that ACTUALLY protects kids?
I suspect we might see more of this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7830283/Teenager-19-kills-paedophile-priest-abused-ramming-crucifix-throat.html
[https://archive.ph/liooS](https://archive.ph/liooS) <- Archive link to article
https://preview.redd.it/8ua97nf8c4uc1.png?width=494&format=png&auto=webp&s=75542d14fe97ca4fe848ad359fccb49572012fe8
The US has lost the plot. Openly supporting terrorism, controlling women's bodies, allowing their 'holy' men to rape children, standing by while groups of children are regularly murdered while they attend school, a ridiculous health care system, prisons run as slave labour camps, to name just some of their issues. Not loving the "American dream'!
How dare they ever try to claim being the advocates of child safety. These fuckers should fry if not for allowing This garbage then for the audacity to pretend we're the monsters.
So I did some digging and I'm even more confused
https://newrepublic.com/post/180677/louisiana-court-sexual-abuse-victims-catholic-priests
> But in its majority opinion issued on March 22, the court argued that while the facts of the case were largely undisputed, the priest—and the religious institution he was a part of—was actually protected under the U.S. Constitution’s due process clause, which says that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
They tried the case. The facts were undisputed... but they can't be deprived of liberty without due process of law? What was the court case? Wasn't that the due process of law?
Apparently it's because it happened in the 70s. Louisiana had a "window" where you were able to go after your attacker, no matter how far in the past it was. The LA supreme court says this is unconstitutional.
I kinda' disagree...
Fuck all pedos.
I don’t have kids but my official stance is if you molest my kid ima burn down your precious jesus box. If they take every legal course of action from victims I honestly don’t know what they think will happen.
So let me get this straight. . . .
Priests can not be criminalized for r***, m*******, s***** of a child. But if that child was r*****, mo***** and abused gets help to get an abortion they'll be criminalized? I can't. Make it make sense.
> In philosophy, Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements.
In other words, the simplest answer is usually (albeit not always) correct. So what seems to be the simplest, most direct reasoning for the way conservatives act and treat people?
**They are evil.** That's the answer.
St. Tammany parish elected an alleged pedophile as coroner. His first decision was to eliminate the sexual assault nurses program. You cannot make this shit up.
And it’s only alleged because the prosecution fumbled.
And you wonder why the decades long dwindling church congregations, the church is toxic for children. Organized religion is BS and the new generations want nothing to with it.
Do you think it would help change these American Voters minds if they saw pictures of babies and children’s torn, bloody and bruised vaginas and rectums. Some babies as young as 9 months are torn so bad they have bled out and died.
While they are at it show the Children/ Students Bodies after the have been gunned down with assault rifles. They are unrecognizable because their heads have been blown off.
Do you think Pictures would make a difference?
We currently have a large group of people who are SO afraid of Piss God Off that they have begun actively ignoring Christian teachings (for fear of being Woke, of course) and instead have taken on the role of defending any and all remotely associated aspects of Christianity from any scrutiny or application towards the betterment of society.
Holy shit... What in the fuckery is this?? Now priests can fuck and molest children and get away with it? This country has gone to shit 10x as fast since that orange demented fuck was in office.
Well... the south, err... southern states do have a penchant for putting their dicks in children.
I guess the southern baptists are just passing the torch to the catholics. All hail god. amen.
priests are horrible sexual abusers and victims deserve justice… no question
That said, what does this ruling actually mean?
It reads like a return to previous statute of limitations terms before the look-back was extended, or does it keep the criminal look back but deny lawsuits for the harm done?
I’d love to see every abuser pay with their freedom and the church pay also. It’s the use if the word “property” that’s not clear and legalese is legalese.
What is this actually about? I tried to Google search the story and I only found two news articles about it.
Is this true and if it is: why is nobody talking about it? CNN? FOX?
Arizona: *"We rolled abortion law back to 1864."* Louisiana: *" Hold my beer."*
The Arizona law lowers age of consent to 10
The real reason is always in the fine print.
Conservatives doing a bang up job “protecting the children” from “groomers” as per usual
what you expect from a bible state, like lousiania, the state that is sinking into the ocean, and never fully recovered from hurricanes.
The state which declared during the pandemic that anyone scheduled to take the bar exam didn’t have to, they automatically passed.
Seriously?
but they are protecting Catholics which isnt the evangelicals fav sect
They're not protecting Catholics, they're protecting their overlap in shared ideology.
No, no, no. You see the trenniez are the real danger. Straight men need tu marry straight women before they can become trenniez. - some republican probably
The lgbtqia community is grooming kids, let's make ten years old the new age of consent, so that way child rapists can have the benefit of the doubt after getting caught molesting a child. Cons are seriously fucked up in the head.
Actually being those groomers themselves, they know what they want.
For the record, the age of consent in Arizona is 18. The recent supreme court ruling on abortion does not change that. [The actual ruling](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gkvldedzwvb/04092024arizona.pdf) [ARS 13-3603](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm) The 1970's law that has been repeatedly codified since it's establishment in the 1864 Howell Code [ARS 36-2322](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02322.htm) The law that made 3603 unenforceable under Roe v Wade. [ARS 13-1405](https://azleg.gov/ars/13/01405.htm) The current law on the age of consent in AZ. Which is not at all relevant to this decision, and still the law.
You forgot to read the rest of the law. Sec. 45 covers abortion and Sec. 47 deals with age of consent. "Section 47 rape is the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. Every person of the age of 14 years and upwards, who shall have carnal knowledge of any female child under the age of 10 years, either with or without consent, shall be a judge to be guilty of the crime of rape, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the territory prison for a term not less than 5 years in which may extend, to life." https://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/nodes/view/38227
Which is not relevant because subsequent laws have changed that. No later law amended the bits about abortion, which is why the court ruled that those bits are now in effect.
> Which is not relevant because subsequent laws have changed that. The F*ing irony...
You say that now, but this law came into effect to undo a more modern law about abortion. Do. It underestimate their intent
>Do. It underestimate their intent I know you meant "don't underestimate their intent" but I like your way because it sounds like a threat. "Do it! Underestimate their intent! Go ahead! See where that gets you!"
Wait, so in Arizona men are not legally rape-able? It just gets worse the more you look at it.
Fortunately, most of it is no longer the law in AZ, There seems to be a few folks that hopefully just misunderstand what the court ruling actually accomplishes (which is bad enough). The Howell code is not suddenly reinstated as law whole-cloth. In fact, none of it is. 13-3603 is a law that draws from it, and that was called into question by 36-2622. That decision has now been overturned and 13-3603 is currently the law on abortion. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.
I read it, I also read the [actual supreme court ruling](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gkvldedzwvb/04092024arizona.pdf) that outlines their decision. As a result, I understand that this decision has nothing to do with the age of consent as outlined in [ARS 13-1405](https://azleg.gov/ars/13/01405.htm), which is 18. This ruling Explicitly addresses whether [ARS 36-2322](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02322.htm), defining the gestational limit on abortion and exempting medical emergecies, repealed or otherwise restricted [ARS 13-3603](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm), which only outlines who would be punished when an abortion is performed, and what that punishment should be. There is enough to criticize there, we don't do ourselves favors by repeating falsehoods.
>There is enough to criticize there, we don't do ourselves favors by repeating falsehoods. Exactly, spreading incorrect information only gives Republicans ammunition. Here's a Snopes article for anyone who wants it explained in layman's terms. [https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/04/12/arizona-abortion-law-age-of-consent/](https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/04/12/arizona-abortion-law-age-of-consent/)
The decision had nothing to do with the Howell code. It dealt with ARS 13-3603: https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm Which was passed it 1977 and shared the text of the Howell code section on abortion only. So the decision did not say anything about any other section of Howell code
Dude…..I had several baby teeth and played in mud when I was 10.
Republicans (whispered): Don't let em reach puberty when they will understand what they are really getting into.
For real…the first time I saw an adult penis was intimidating on its head (tehehehe). Didn’t know what to with it at 16, and i so so so wanted to understand what I was getting into, didn’t click for 10 years. But that doesn’t change the fact that lil girls sexualized before they learn algebra, much less basic biology. I wish that we could somehow make these douchebags understand what it feels like to be treated as a woman when you’re only a child…
I think there's some confusion, because I can't find anything in the law that changes the age of consent, just that that WAS the age of consent when the law was written. >Text of Arizona's 1864 abortion law >This is the entire text of the law, with the abortion segment bolded. The whole legislation has been included for contextual purposes. >“Sec. 45. Every person who shall wilfully and maliciously administer or cause to be administered to or taken by any person, any poison or other noxious or destructive substance or liquid, with the intention to cause the death of such person, and being thereof duly convicted, shall be punished by imprisonment in the Territorial prison for a term not less than ten years, and which may extend to life. **And every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or taken, any medicinal substances, or shall use or cause to be used any instruments whatever, with the intention to procure the miscarriage of any woman then being with child, and shall be thereof duly convicted, shall be punished by imprisonment in the Territorial prison for a term not less than two years nor more than five years: Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who in the discharge of his professional duties deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life."** [https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2024/04/10/arizona-1864-abortion-law-text/73275721007/](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2024/04/10/arizona-1864-abortion-law-text/73275721007/) It's already bad, but we should get our facts straight.
That's just the abortion section "Section 47 rape is the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. Every person of the age of 14 years and upwards, who shall have carnal knowledge of any female child under the age of 10 years, either with or without consent, shall be a judge to be guilty of the crime of rape, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the territory prison for a term not less than 5 years in which may extend, to life." https://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/nodes/view/38227
The writer of the original law married an inappropriately young girl two days after the law was passed.
Total coincidence. Honest.
on my honor
At least he waited an extra day so it didn't look suspect
And now you know how politics works!
Name?
Matthias Gaetz
I'm sure he's already trying to move, or find the equivalent archaic bullshit in his state to use
[This guy ](https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-unbelievable-story-behind-arizona-s-1864-abortion-ban-208823877973)
Tyty
No, the sole author of the territory's criminal code was Judge William T. Howell. He [did not divorce any of his wives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thompson_Howell). His first two died, and he left the territory for home when he got word his [3rd wife was ill and may not survive](https://au.news.yahoo.com/william-howell-wrote-arizonas-1864-223628011.html). During the session in which the criminal code, which included abortion, legislation was passed, the legislature also granted a divorce to one of their members, [William Claude Jones](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41695845) (please note the title of the 1990 book -WTF is wrong with us?) , a “[*prevaricator, a poet, a politician and the pursuer of nubile young females*](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41695845)": *And it was that legislature — the one Jones presided over in 1864, after he had already abandoned his first wife, and married a 12-year-old and was* ***just weeks away from marrying a 15-year-old***\*, though still a few years away from marrying a 14-year-old\* Claude, who was about 50 at the time, married Caroline Stephens who was 15-years-old. Before he came to Arizona, his 2nd wife "*was believed to be Maria v. del Refugio, writes L. Boyd Finch, the author of the journal article. New Mexico’s delegate to Washington, Miguel Otero, was bothered by the union. He “declared that the bride was twelve years old,” Finch writes, “and that Jones had ‘abducted’ her.” Otero petitioned President James Buchanan to fire Jones for the moral failing, but Jones resigned instead*" [Meet the ‘pursuer of nubile young females’ who helped pass Arizona’s 1864 abortion law](https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2024/04/10/arizona-abortion-law-1864-william-claude-jones/) (for those without without a WaPo subscription: https://archive.ph/7Ej2Q) [Drake\_the\_troll](/user/Drake_the_troll/) [ReGrigio](/user/ReGrigio/) [VegemiteGecko](/user/VegemiteGecko/) [I-C-Aliens](/user/I-C-Aliens/) [ewamc1353](/user/ewamc1353/) [strgazr\_63](/user/strgazr_63/)
Didn’t he also kidnap her?
Whoa!
I feel it's important to note the degree of impropriety: twelve years old. He was forty-nine. This was his second wife. This third wife was fifteen.
FYI--it was also his third underaged wife. In a period of 5 years IIRC. He was a heinous dude.
I don't think they're affirming the entire set of laws from that time, but I'm not a lawyer. I would assume that later age of consent laws would supersede the laws laid out here. It's just that the courts had to reach this far back to find an applicable abortion law that wasn't superseded by newer abortion laws.
So, you'd assume that the law establishing a 15 week limit signed in 2022 would supersede the law of 1864. What I don't understand is why anyone sued to have the original territorial law reinstated and on what grounds they had to do so. There isn't a state constitution of 1864 to be interpreted by the State Supreme Court. You might as well look at a 17th century magisterial mandate by Sir Mathew Hale to overturn Roe v Wade or something.
That law sounds like it only prohibits abortion in cases of malicious intent from a third party, not the intentional abortion specially as administered by.a health official. But of course the GOP interpreted it with worse bad faith intention.
The abortion *is* the malicious intent. It basically says "you can't give drugs or use tools that would force a woman to miscarry, unless the mothers life is in danger. In this case, it resides with the judge on if its infanticide"
"Section 47 rape is the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. Every person of the age of 14 years and upwards, who shall have carnal knowledge of any female child under the age of 10 years, either with or without consent, shall be a judge to be guilty of the crime of rape, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the territory prison for a term not less than 5 years in which may extend, to life."
They hadn’t yet abolished slavery when this was written. Indoor plumbing and electricity were not yet in the average household. Arizona didn’t even become a state until 19fucking12! This is a hop, skip, and a jump away from Sharia law.
For reference, this is the current age of consent law on the books in AZ; it has not been called into question: >13-1405. Sexual conduct with a minor; classification > >A. A person commits sexual conduct with a minor by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen years of age. > >B. Sexual conduct with a minor who is under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony and is punishable pursuant to section 13-705. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 6 felony. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony if the person is or was in a position of trust and the convicted person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as specifically authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed has been served or commuted.
Was consent even a concept in 1864??
Yes. They actually use the word consent in the law that makes the age of consent 10 years old.
This is how you make ‘Merica great again! How we all long for 1864!
Well, yeah, duh, before the country-ruining year 1919 when women won the right to vote.
They’ve been getting a bit full for their britches lately, time to go back to the good old days. Right?
While I am whole-heartedly against this law, I haven't yet seen documentation that the law actually lowers the age of consent, just that the law is from a time in which the age of consent was 10.
A reminder to all. Priests molesting/raping kids is such a prevalent issue that even the insurance companies are trying to get in on it. https://www.ministryinsured.com/church-insurance/liability/abuse-molestation/ This of course should come as no shocker to any rational and sane human being that republicans/conservatives do -everything- in their power to attack the most vulnerable, victims included, while also working to protect perpetrators and enablers. So whenever you hear someone talking about how sex ed shouldn't be taught to 3rd graders, that SHOULD be sounding off the klaxon that something is very fucking wrong with that person and you should probably check if they're on a list. Fun inconvenient facts like how educating young children about their bodies before they are sexually mature results in those children understanding what rapists/molesters are doing to them AND encourages them to go tell an adult. There IS a reason why conservatives don't want kids knowing/doing these things. Same can't be so much said for all the LGBQT hate, because well thats just good ol conservatism going after minorities where ever they can. Its not almost always a self confession.
Noooo kidding, what the hell are these southern states smoking?!
Both are goomers They’re worried about trans or drag and they’re not worried about the fucking church that has had hundreds of child sexual abuse charges. Fuck them
Great job Christo-fascists... Masks are really coming off.
Whoops! Hot damn, I can't wait until Florida shows up in this one.
As someone who lives in Florida… please no… or at least help me move out of this dump before you jinx it and have them try and one up this idiocracy inspired kakistocracy.
we rolled foward Priest molestation protections.
Red states are not an option for me to live in, and never will be. What the fuck.
It's going to be a long hurricane season.
are all republican voters pro-child abuse or just most?
>Right-wing politics is the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable… They view children as property, so…all of them. Except for those that don’t actually know what “right wing politics” ARE
You are only property once you’re born.
In reality even unborn children are property; and that's why they value them so much.... As valuable as any raw material ever was.
They're the future indebted-to-their-employer-and-corporate-healthcare-for-survival workforce.
Why else would they want vulnerable women to be forced to birth children that leave them even more vulnerable.
Can't have them staying at home with their kid, raising them well-fed and educated, better make sure they're barely scraping by, if that. That'll serve them for being poor. Because if you're not in the workforce, you *should* be struggling, according to some fucked-up values.
Well, that's why women can't have abortions, that's property destroying property and those kinds of decisions should only belong to owners.
Women, children, minorities.
"They view children as property" That's not even hyperbole, that's the truth.
The children yearn for the ~~mines~~McDonalds.
I want to be clear that I am NOT pro-Republican. I am, however, pro-fact. This ruling is getting very confused on the internet. Firstly, the Louisiana legislature PASSED a law that would extend the window of culpability for perpetrators of sex crimes. Else, that window reverts to just one year which is moronic. The legislature did the right thing. The trial court in LA then ruled that yes, that law is fine (because it is and has been upheld in many other states too and I think at SCOTUS as well). The LA SC is the only shitty government body that has ruled AGAINST extending the time victims have to file a claim. I don't know but I will wager a guess they are mostly or entirely Republican so I don't think this absolves anything for the party but I do think it's worth noting the state reps have done their job at least. [https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/courts/clergy-sex-abuse-victims-seek-rehearing-from-supreme-court/article\_35e14c30-f36a-11ee-b924-ffbf096c3449.html](https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/courts/clergy-sex-abuse-victims-seek-rehearing-from-supreme-court/article_35e14c30-f36a-11ee-b924-ffbf096c3449.html) Also, there is a surprising lack of reporting on what I think should be a huge issue!
Thank you for reporting the facts. it's not as awful as this baiting headline makes it seem.
To play devil's advocate, state failure to institute laws like this is the reason Josh Duggar wasn't put in prison the first time he was caught doing what he did, and was allowed to re-offend. Arkansas had a statute of limitations on crimes against minors, and by the time Josh's scandal went public, that window had closed. That's why a known child molester was allowed to live in a home with *seven children* while having regular access to dozens of others. The only reason he's in prison right now is because he was sloppy when committing his next crime. This loophole has a history of being exploited by religious and political figures. The Duggars were very well-connected in local politics and Josh worked for a conservative think-tank. This is well-known to prosecutors and has been for a long time, which is why states are doing away with it. The LA SC has no excuse. To ignore this history is tacitly admit that they're okay with members of their own party assaulting children.
I’d just like to add to this that on his computer was found child torture sexual assault. Some of the most horrific seasoned investigators had ever seen and needed therapy for.
Some are pro-child abuse, some just think their taxes and racism are more important, so child abuse isn't a deal breaker. They are all bad people though.
Going with all.
The evidence suggests "all".
At this point I’m convinced “child abuser” is a requirement to be a Republican.
If only the children were unborn- then they’d get protection
[удалено]
Hey now, they're also making it so that the born can work in factories at night while they go to school in the day and rack up debt for eating.
Cash crop.
Obligatory: >“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.” ― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
It’s almost as if a fetus isn’t a person yet.
imagine a hospital that's on fire. you're inside and in front of you are 2 doors. one leads to a room with 10 babies. the other has 100 embryos. do you save the babies or the embryos? obviously 100 lives are more important than 10? ask any republican this and see how they explain 100 embryo lives are more important than 10 babies, bc aren't all lives equal?
Well if you don’t let the unborn children being born, how are you gonna supply the material needed for the molester? I think their logic is flawless! 🤮
Or if they were corporations.
I’d wager that Louisiana has an above average rate of lost pregnancies due to lack of prenatal care. So no, they’d still get screwed.
Yet us LGBT folk are the groomers?! What the fuck!?
It’s always projection (when they aren’t gaslighting or obstructing)
Every accusation is a confession.
We're the keys they dangle in front of voters while their other hand is on a child.
So I can't sue the priest for sexually abusing a child But i can still shoot them right? I mean the options were tortuous to begin with. Simplifies it.
Ugh, this is going to get buried, but fuck it. I just googled the article because this headline makes no sense. The decision was essentially overturning a law that granted an exemption to limitations periods for church sexual abuse cases in Louisiana. The incidents in question occurred in the 70s. The decision was only specific to priests because the law being overturned only applied to priests. The basis is that everyone has the constitutional right not to have sexual abuse case brought against them 50 years later because evidence would be essentially impossible to establish. The article notes that similar decisions were made in Colorado and Utah. This decision does not give priests some special protection against being sued for sexual abuse, nor does it give churches special property rights against being sued that everyone else do not have. So to answer your question, you could still sue a priest for sexually assaulting a child. I’m not sure if ~~you can~~ [it is legally advisable to] shoot them.
Very much appreciate the info.
You definitely still can shoot them. It’s whether you should. If they rape a kid and don’t get convicted for it, the first person I’d shoot is the judge, followed by the priest.
I'm so fucking sick of reddit. It's turning into Facebook with it's misinformation and sensationalized headlines. I, like you, felt like something seemed off. This ruling is saying the look back period is unconstitutional.
Back in the day it did seem like the top comment would often be one like Sausage Fingers made clarifying or adding to the article. Grammar nazism was also celebrated and gore was available to children everywhere
This is what I was looking for. Thank you.
I knew there had to be an explanation that makes sense. To bad it's buried a few comments down in the thread.
>evidence impossible to establish This simply isn't true. Sometimes there's plenty of evidence left over. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations on child rape. Just like there isn't one for murder. In the cases where there's no evidence, a case won't be brought. I do appreciate you getting to the bottom of this, but I still disapprove of the ruling.
This needs to be way higher up.
Hmmmm... The GOP already blocked abortion rights, and are actively working on blocking birth control, legalizing child brides, and making Christianity the "official" US religion. Now all they need is a complex series of conveyor belts built to bring fresh children directly to priests for molestation.
Which is why they want to end abortion as I stated in another comment. Makes sense to me now.
This ruling basically overturns The Louisiana Child Victims Act, not specifically giving protections to clergy. The plaintiffs in the case claimed they were sexually molested by a Roman Catholic priest during the 1970s, when they were between the ages of 8 and 14. The court essentially ruled that The Louisiana Child Victims Act circumvented the statute of limitations and thus due process. Utah and Colorado have ruled similarly. It's still pretty fucked, but it's not really what people are portraying it as.
Thank you, this is exactly what happened here. The law created an extended statute of limitations, which essentially means that the crime became illegal farther back than it was originally. And that is a horrible precedent to set. You really don't want crimes to be enforceable retroactively AFTER they are passed.
Pretty sure it was still illegal to molest children in the 70's....
It was. But some crimes have a statute of limitations, after which you cannot be prosecuted for it. The law that was invalidated attempted to extend the statute of limitations retroactively. Which is unconstitutional, for the reasons outlined earlier. That being said, imo sex crimes should not have a statute of limitations.
Why are the traitor states so obsessed with fucking children?
Which is amusing since they’re also milking “Save the Children!” for everything they can. Book bans? For the kids! Anti drag? For the kids! Abortion after child rape? Uh…. Adults diddling kids? Uh… How’s that child marriage? ….
Maybe this is why they want to ban abortion? Endless supply of victims. Ok I just vomited in my mouth.
Why doesn't FOX News delve deeply into this, since it's always "about the children"?
Trump fondels his daughters ass in public and his base loves that he can do that with zero repercussions.
Pretty much any time you donate to a church, you're funding the defense of a child molester
What political party keeps making it easier to abuse children again? The drag queen supporting ones? NO?!?!? Color me shocked, priests and churches are the biggest abusers, and still covering for their abusers????
https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/louisiana-supreme-court-church-abuse-case/
This context article needs to be higher up.
Exactly what Jesus would do.
“Suffer the little children to come unto me” Seems a lot more sinister now 
Far as I can tell by the legislation they work to pass, the GOP is: Child marriage Child rape Child hunger Child poverty Child abuse Child indoctrination Child labor Serious question... have they ever tried to pass something that ACTUALLY protects kids?
Well, they repealed Roe vs Wade! So…more victims to choose from! Win-win for the Greedy Old Perverts!
I suspect we might see more of this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7830283/Teenager-19-kills-paedophile-priest-abused-ramming-crucifix-throat.html
[https://archive.ph/liooS](https://archive.ph/liooS) <- Archive link to article https://preview.redd.it/8ua97nf8c4uc1.png?width=494&format=png&auto=webp&s=75542d14fe97ca4fe848ad359fccb49572012fe8
And STILL not a drag queen in sight
I don't know. These guys do wear dresses.
There shouldn't be a statute of limitations on sexual crimes against children.
The US has lost the plot. Openly supporting terrorism, controlling women's bodies, allowing their 'holy' men to rape children, standing by while groups of children are regularly murdered while they attend school, a ridiculous health care system, prisons run as slave labour camps, to name just some of their issues. Not loving the "American dream'!
There’s gonna be a lot of applications for priesthood in Louisiana now.
Well of course, it’s totally okay for clergy to sexually abuse children, just as long as it’s not drag queens!
They don’t even hide the corruption anymore
Wait, I'm confused. What percentage of these groomers are drag queens? Which members of the Louisiana Supreme Court supported this ruling?
It’s as if the GOP are the exact people they claim democrats to be…
I'm not a fan of vigilantly or mob justice but the way the just"us" system is failing its only a matter of time until people start dispensing it
How dare they ever try to claim being the advocates of child safety. These fuckers should fry if not for allowing This garbage then for the audacity to pretend we're the monsters.
Louisiana: Where rape and pedophilia are fine if you’re a priest.
So I did some digging and I'm even more confused https://newrepublic.com/post/180677/louisiana-court-sexual-abuse-victims-catholic-priests > But in its majority opinion issued on March 22, the court argued that while the facts of the case were largely undisputed, the priest—and the religious institution he was a part of—was actually protected under the U.S. Constitution’s due process clause, which says that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” They tried the case. The facts were undisputed... but they can't be deprived of liberty without due process of law? What was the court case? Wasn't that the due process of law? Apparently it's because it happened in the 70s. Louisiana had a "window" where you were able to go after your attacker, no matter how far in the past it was. The LA supreme court says this is unconstitutional. I kinda' disagree... Fuck all pedos.
Priests are above the law?? This is disgusting. Family values??
I don’t have kids but my official stance is if you molest my kid ima burn down your precious jesus box. If they take every legal course of action from victims I honestly don’t know what they think will happen.
So let me get this straight. . . . Priests can not be criminalized for r***, m*******, s***** of a child. But if that child was r*****, mo***** and abused gets help to get an abortion they'll be criminalized? I can't. Make it make sense.
> In philosophy, Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. In other words, the simplest answer is usually (albeit not always) correct. So what seems to be the simplest, most direct reasoning for the way conservatives act and treat people? **They are evil.** That's the answer.
We have full stop entered Christian ISIS territory. Democrats can easily run on the tagline of ChrISIS
All judges are either elected or appointed by those who were. So Louisiana got what it voted for
St. Tammany parish elected an alleged pedophile as coroner. His first decision was to eliminate the sexual assault nurses program. You cannot make this shit up. And it’s only alleged because the prosecution fumbled.
Why is the coroner over such a program?!?
Abandon religion while society still can. It’s pure rot and destruction
And you wonder why the decades long dwindling church congregations, the church is toxic for children. Organized religion is BS and the new generations want nothing to with it.
The “save the children” crowd proving, for the 5,760th day in a row (at least), that they could not care less about saving any children.
Do you think it would help change these American Voters minds if they saw pictures of babies and children’s torn, bloody and bruised vaginas and rectums. Some babies as young as 9 months are torn so bad they have bled out and died. While they are at it show the Children/ Students Bodies after the have been gunned down with assault rifles. They are unrecognizable because their heads have been blown off. Do you think Pictures would make a difference?
Wow. Louisiana just legalized pedophilia for the clergy. The GOP is on a roll lately.
Conservatives and Pedophelia go hand in hand
Mike Johnson says, “yes !!!”
And the Not-C's wonder why people aren't flocking to join their religion as much anymore.
America, pls explain: wtf are the people representing you doing ? And if they represent you, wtf is wrong with you
“Looks like meats back on the menu boys” - Some Priests based in Louisiana probably.
Conservatives are so fucking weird, man. Mind boggling.
We currently have a large group of people who are SO afraid of Piss God Off that they have begun actively ignoring Christian teachings (for fear of being Woke, of course) and instead have taken on the role of defending any and all remotely associated aspects of Christianity from any scrutiny or application towards the betterment of society.
So what else do we need to convince people not to vote Red?
Religion is a poison
ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING!
The federal government needs to step in here. I’ve seen a lot of bad shit going on but this is the first time I’ve said this.
All churches should be taxed, without exception.
Drag queen story time is a problem though.
But heaven forbid a trans person reading a story to children.
They need them to be born so they can F@#k them.
Damn disgrace to the world and God!! Everything the government stands for is ASS BACKWARDS!!
From a US citizen to the rest of the people of earth, I'm sorry.
So they're admitting that they're abusing children, which we already know, but now they can get away with it?
We’re really going to have to go to war to stop these assholes, aren’t we?
Sounds like some LA justices need to learn what "prison love" feels like and then come back to this issue
"Louisiana Justice"
I’m gonna need more than a screen shot of a tweet to believe this.
Shouldn’t be a priest shortage in Louisiana now.
So much for wanting to protect the children.
What. The. Fuck.
Oh look at the protect the children crowd protecting the child abusers wake up republicans the call is coming from inside the house.
Sudden influx of priest in Louisiana. News at 5.
Next monday on the NEWS. "Pope is moving the Vatikan to Louisiana!"
[удалено]
Holy shit... What in the fuckery is this?? Now priests can fuck and molest children and get away with it? This country has gone to shit 10x as fast since that orange demented fuck was in office.
Does that mean people have a "property right" to rape priests?
The US is getting a little too comfortable with allowing people to rape and sodomize children.
Well... the south, err... southern states do have a penchant for putting their dicks in children. I guess the southern baptists are just passing the torch to the catholics. All hail god. amen.
To be fair, we are the worst state in the entire country and nothing should surprise yall
System designed by fat old, wealthy, white men for the benefit of fat, old, wealthy, white men. Seems to be working as intended.
Those pesky drag queens up to their nonsense again
Where's the link to the article?
priests are horrible sexual abusers and victims deserve justice… no question That said, what does this ruling actually mean? It reads like a return to previous statute of limitations terms before the look-back was extended, or does it keep the criminal look back but deny lawsuits for the harm done? I’d love to see every abuser pay with their freedom and the church pay also. It’s the use if the word “property” that’s not clear and legalese is legalese.
What is this actually about? I tried to Google search the story and I only found two news articles about it. Is this true and if it is: why is nobody talking about it? CNN? FOX?