Comments
[deleted] t1_j2dg6ql wrote
There's a definite logic. When a state becomes a state you wouldn't want scrap all the laws on the books, then you just need to waste time re-legislating every single law. Surely it's easier to keep all the laws and deal with any that are struck down as they arise. And, as we see in this case, subsequent laws can take precedence over the old laws in cases where there appears to be disagreement.
The issue isn't whether such laws should be valid, but the intent of those who turn to such laws to try to impose their will when they know laws such as these contradict the spirit and/or the letter of current legislation.
NotRoryWilliams t1_j2f4s8r wrote
This is the correct answer. And if I recall from law school, the only state that did otherwise was Louisiana and most legal scholars note that the state is kind of an aberration from the rest of the country based on its Napoleonic roots. Napoleon was kind of a weird bureaucratic dictator and liked all laws to be explicitly spelled out in writing; I believe (though I don’t know because I haven’t really researched it) that his code basically disposed with “common law” altogether.
The rest of the US is based on the English common law tradition, where “the law” is a mix of statutes and court precedents. Most states have passed new statutes to cover most situations but still depend on case law to flesh out ambiguities in the statutes, which is basically why courts require trained specialists as lawyers and judges.
demarr t1_j2fugps wrote
>trained specialists as lawyers and judges
You be surprised how this isn't a thing in a lot smaller towns and county in the states. Alot of places don't require much to be a judge, some get appointed, some get voted in.
[deleted] t1_j2e5sgl wrote
[removed]
Broad_Success_4703 t1_j2daov8 wrote
Probably a clause allowing laws prior to continue
[deleted] t1_j2dm5bl wrote
[removed]
Logistocrate t1_j2dopm7 wrote
My guess is a lack of political will to do so. It's hard enough to get new political agendas passed in some cases without the added burden of trying to introduce something to take care of a law that is currently unenforceable, and would also appear to be unenforceable post removal of protection from the consequences of that law.
My second guess, and it could be mixed with my first, is that unless you have a really solid party majority you could be inviting a voter response for tackling a wedge issue and it might not be perceived as worth it if the law is unenforceable anyway.
shewy92 t1_j2dvvtr wrote
Other stuff to worry about than old laws that no one enforced. Like how in PA it's illegal to sing in the bathtub
LittleGreenSoldier t1_j2e9zir wrote
I love the old laws that are now completely bonkers because the circumstances that called for them no longer exist.
In some places it is illegal to lie under a public walkway. They made those laws in the days of wooden sidewalks, where you could lie underneath and peek through gaps in the boards to look up ladies skirts.
Ludwigofthepotatoppl t1_j2ea4xo wrote
They tend to revisit old laws as they come up. Times and opinions change, someone charged asks “wait, isn’t this law bullshit?” and then it’s time to look things over. ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ is the general attitude, but with these old laws you don’t always know shit’s broke until someone’s inconvenienced.
NotRoryWilliams t1_j2f53ok wrote
Because there’s no reason to, especially something like an ancient law that was technically invalidated by a Supreme Court case. There are invalid laws on the books basically everywhere, lots of states and many more counties and municipalities, because there’s no real benefit to legislatively repealing or rewriting a law that’s been invalidated by a court, except to make less (billable) work for lawyers. Since most legislators are also lawyers, why would they put in extra work themselves that serves no purpose but to make it harder for their colleagues to earn a living?
genericnewlurker t1_j2e8fh6 wrote
The same reason that English Common Laws, such as the Castle Doctrine, are still in American Law. When Arizona was ratified and joined the Union, they didn't scrap everything and start over, the laws of the territory became the laws of the newly formed state. That bedrock of previously established laws were later added to or amended as time passed. Most laws have been updated for the modern times, like in this case, but this prosecutor found an old relic to try and promote his political views despite the legislature updating the law.
IdealDesperate2732 t1_j2e5wmd wrote
Continuity of authority of government.
The state government is only legitimate because it stems from the pre-state government which was set up by the federal government. Apparently there is a transitive property of governmental authority.
sunnydaysahead2022 t1_j2e6nky wrote
Because they are laws that control women.
Goddamnpassword t1_j2et0qs wrote
The entire purpose of the territory to state path is to create the structures and laws to support self governance and joining the union. Territories are judge on the laws they passed and how they’ve chosen to administer their territory prior to joining. Arizona for example had to get rid of a law allowing for the recall of all judges by popular vote to be admitted to the union and Utah had to forswear polygamy.
[deleted] t1_j2e1sni wrote
[removed]
bigd10199501 t1_j2e3a4p wrote
Because the constitution allows for states to have their own laws that differ from federal law.
IdealDesperate2732 t1_j2e5q7s wrote
ok, but that doesn't answer the question because this is before they're a state.
SingleAlmond t1_j2eg8ek wrote
AZ was the last state in the lower 48. It didn't become a state until 1912 iirc. Settlers were living there for 100s of years, you cant just erase all those laws and start fresh
bigd10199501 t1_j2e603a wrote
Because the state had its own constitution of laws and they are grandfathered in. I’m not sure the process but I’m sure there has to be some compromise on some laws so they are more “conducive” to the federal level.
500CatsTypingStuff t1_j2fftpt wrote
Federal laws have precedence over state laws
chadan1008 t1_j2dshav wrote
>a sentence of two to five years in prison for anyone who assists in an abortion
Isn’t it interesting how abortion can simultaneously be murder but also only be punished with 2-5 years in prison? If it’s murder it would clearly fit the definition of first degree murder, which would typically be a life sentence.
It’s almost like even pro-life people know it isn’t murder
bettinafairchild t1_j2e3y4h wrote
We tried they argument. As well as other arguments over the years to help them to see that abortion can be necessary, like to save the mother’s life or rape or a 10 year old, etc. in EVERY case, that resulted in them becoming more extreme, not less, and now there are those pressing for abortion to be punished by the death penalty.
CatFanFanOfCats t1_j2e58x1 wrote
Yep. There is no reasoning with them. We must show up at the polls and vote for only those politicians in a political party that supports reproductive rights/body autonomy. This means voting strictly for Democrats, as the Republican Party wants to not only control reproductive rights but also wants control of body autonomy.
DuneTinkerson t1_j2f4eyu wrote
I've tried talking to people that say they support abortion "when it makes sense" like with rape cases and ectopic pregnancies, but they still seem to be OK with those things because they support anti-abortion bills at large. They want abortion to be illegal but with some exceptions, that simply isn't possible in today's climate, it's all or nothing, no nuance. I feel that even if I personally was pro-life I would much rather be on the side that provides options.
I've heard people say that they need to force the 10 year old rape victim to have a baby because the "baby was innocent". They say extremely cruel shit and think they are morally superior.
mydaycake t1_j2e9uip wrote
Losts of prolife would want life sentence for doctors, nurses and the women. It’s not the case yet but some states will try
DrummingOnAutopilot t1_j2euqfg wrote
I mean, Authoritarianism 101 includes the educated, especially doctors and nurses, being labeled a threat to the regime.
It's literally in their playbook lol
Plus they are all religious nuts, so just for that they can piss off IMO
howardslowcum t1_j2ez8yl wrote
Isn't this concidered the primary reason Stalin died? He had a stroke and a couple hours later Beria was called in to check on him, as the guards knew better than to disturb Stalin but also knew something was wrong. When Beria arrived Stalin was still alive but because Stalin had gone on a paranoid tirade and had most of the doctors in Moscow arrested and killed/sent to the gulag there were no doctors (or anyone willing to admit to being a doctor) left in the city.
DrummingOnAutopilot t1_j2f474y wrote
That wasn't quite what I learned, plus the circumstances of his death aren't exactly concrete (lots of theories floating around, holes in stories, etc). It's possible that was part of it, as I do remember the part about the guards being under orders/deciding not to disturb him. And the part about Russian leaders always treating doctors like shit (an understatement).
howardslowcum t1_j2f4jm3 wrote
Yeah, I have heard several stories as well, same with Lenin and Hitler.
annoying97 t1_j2ecquu wrote
Well I mean that's one way of population control... Not a good way but a way.
mydaycake t1_j2ed6v8 wrote
They would find a way to make those women pregnant, I am still waiting for them to propose laws to implement frozen embryos to women in jail or something similar as pregnancy consent is not needed in their views
annoying97 t1_j2edbm7 wrote
Good point.
Mimehunter t1_j2efup8 wrote
Unchecked, that's where it will end up
Easy_Bite6858 t1_j2eyhsc wrote
Not a conservative, but I went into their subreddit during the recent state elections. A lot of the posts were acknowledging losses due to the anti-abortion rhetoric and many of them disagreed with it. It's easy to forget that many types of right voters end up under the same umbrella with policies that they don't necessarily agree with. In many cases they are just "along for the ride".
MidLifeHalfHouse t1_j2f5yrj wrote
I don’t know many pro-life conservatives unfortunately. One I know is proud that he “made [his] girlfriend have an abortion.”
So much for “freedom” over your own body. Until they square this blatant hypocrisy most liberals won’t even be able to respect them. The irony is that there are many fiscally conservative liberals who would probably vote with them if not for this glaring bullshit and misogyny. Lots of it internalized misogyny by GOP women.
[deleted] t1_j2edpnw wrote
[removed]
raver6 t1_j2es9ce wrote
No, we do, we just don't define sentencing guidelines.
By that same logic people who kill fetuses are charged with homicide. "iT's AlMoSt LiKe pRo-ChOiCe pEoPlE kNoW iT's MuRdEr!"
Okay, y'all can go ahead and downvote while I read the comments and munch on popcorn. 😎 🍿.
chadan1008 t1_j2f09kk wrote
You're claiming pro-life people aren't defining sentencing guidelines under an article where pro-life people are literally defining sentencing guidelines... And even if that were true, it doesn't change the fact that sentencing guidelines have already been defined for first degree murder, but it is pro-life people who think they shouldn't apply...
Are you saying you want all doctors who have ever performed abortions, along with all women who have received them, to be given life sentences? Who else, how many others need to be punished for this imaginary crime?
[deleted] t1_j2f0uch wrote
[removed]
MidLifeHalfHouse t1_j2f4pcn wrote
We know you do. (Despite the OP’s comment, there have been bills like that in TX.)
That’s why it’s so ironic when you do want to apply the death penalty to woman to prove that “life” is precious. Lol. Only one type of life is valued by the “pro-life” movement.
Many pro-choice people can admit that a fetus is a life, but we don’t expect anyone to grow it inside of them if unwanted no more than we expect you to be a living kidney donor or even donate blood to save a life that will die without it.
Americans have zero freedom if we can’t even have agency over our own bodies. I will never understand how “the party of freedom” let religious zealots control their thoughts in this matter. This hypocrisy is why so many can’t even respect the GOP although they respect others they disagree with.
MalcolmLinair t1_j2cmwi1 wrote
Republican Prosecutors: "I'm going to ignore that."
ESCAPE_PLANET_X t1_j2dgyln wrote
Yes. A republican AG started this and the law wasn't struck down they just said they won't enforce it.
So I suspect we will hear more shenanigans about this from Arizona soon.
robodrew t1_j2dzoy7 wrote
The Democratic candidate, Kris Mayes, just won for AG after a recount, and she will be sworn in on Jan 5th. I suspect one of her first actions will be to say that state attornies will not put any resources into enforcement for this law. She will have the backing of the new Dem governor, Katie Hobbs. The AZ legislature is almost an even split so any new laws they pass regarding enforcement will be vetoed without the possibility of overturning the veto.
mydaycake t1_j2ea1ww wrote
Could the governor ask for a referendum about those laws?
SirGlaurung t1_j2eevh6 wrote
There will almost definitely be a referendum; if I recall correctly, the only reason there wasn’t this past election was that they wasn’t enough time to get it on the ballot after the Dobbs decision.
robodrew t1_j2eedcm wrote
I'm not sure about the governor's powers in that respect but any proposition (essentially) can get on the ballot if a % of registered AZ voters signs petition forms regarding the legislation. There was a petition regarding abortion rights this year that was going around the state but it didn't get enough signatures in time to get on the 2022 ballot. Time will tell if they will be successful to get on the 2024 ballot.
angrystan t1_j2fcwcu wrote
She needs to enforce a policy of bringing to the attention of The Bar attorneys who attempt to enforce "make believe" laws.
listen-to-my-face t1_j2dzevy wrote
A democrat was just elected AG after the recount. There’s hope yet.
[deleted] t1_j2dmgfw wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2cuf8k wrote
[removed]
Peachy33 t1_j2dntld wrote
The term “abortion doctor” just sucks. They are OBGYNs who perform all sorts of medical procedures but gotta get that inflammatory wording out there.
shewy92 t1_j2dw4zl wrote
It's the same thing as calling Planned Parenthood "abortion centers". Abortions aren't even in the top 50% of services PP provides if I remember correctly
MrGraveRisen t1_j2dys0q wrote
Closer to 2%
shewy92 t1_j2dzdnx wrote
Top 2 or bottom 2%? I heard it was only something like 1% but I don't remember where I heard that so I went with the safe "bottom 50%"
MrGraveRisen t1_j2e0equ wrote
Like less than 2% of all services performed there are abortion related
[deleted] t1_j2ew20g wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2dp0h2 wrote
[deleted]
Pixielo t1_j2fw4ml wrote
I know that family doctors have specific GYN training, for well woman, and female developmental care, but I wasn't aware that they had standard abortion training. Especially since most residency programs do not have abortion training. There seem to be in the neighborhood of ~30ish residency programs that offer abortion training, which is really low when you consider that there are 745 family medicine residency programs in the US, offering 4,916 spots this year.
But in general...no, pediatricians, and internists do not perform abortion procedures, and aren't trained for that at all. I have no idea where you got that idea. Could they prescribe abortion pills? Perhaps, but I don't know any doctors that would do so without at least an ultrasound.
There isn't some huge pool of trained abortion providers that aren't being utilized; even OBGYN residents aren't getting appropriate training in 13 states.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10360029/
>Abortion training is not offered at Oklahoma's two medical schools and education on the topic is limited. Aspiring doctors who want to learn about it typically seek out doctors providing abortions outside the traditional medical education system.
>U.S. medical schools require students to complete a clerkship in obstetrics and gynecology, but there is no mandate that it include abortion education. At the post-graduate level, OB-GYN residency programs are required by an accrediting group to provide access to abortion training, though residents who object can opt out of performing abortions.
>OB-GYNs perform most U.S. abortions, followed by family medicine specialists.
https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/bvm5k3/doctors-abortion-training >At least 13 states have now banned almost all abortions, and hospitals in those states can no longer teach the next generation of doctors how to perform the procedure. Although Roe’s overturning has spurred more doctors to pursue abortion training, experts told VICE News, the few places that can provide that information are dwindling and overrun. Abortion providers’ ability to keep up what promises to be a decades-long fight over the future of abortion is now imperiled.
outerproduct t1_j2dbulc wrote
Imagine trying to charge doctors with a crime for providing healthcare.
bootes_droid t1_j2dkgmi wrote
I tried this and all I could see was a blurry image of a guy beating me with a cross
ScienceLivesInsideMe t1_j2ftzau wrote
Imagine charging people for trying to access healthcare. Every republican wants you dead
outerproduct t1_j2fvo7j wrote
[deleted] t1_j2dqzqp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2dzl0s wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2f0ygq wrote
[removed]
NeatCat52 t1_j2dn8uw wrote
“Abortion doctor” isn’t a medical specialty. Lets not pretend there are doctors who provide only abortions, and not other lifesaving medical practices.
NicCagedd t1_j2dt5oa wrote
Shhhhh, how else can they brainwash their base by making them think there's doctors so evil that they specifically do abortions?
odysseusity t1_j2cn6ux wrote
Maga Nazi Androids - 0 Human Women - 1
Donkey_Kahn t1_j2dzmsk wrote
People without healthcare have heartbeats too! Medicare for all!
Eiffel-Tower777 t1_j2dr780 wrote
Note to self: Stay the hell out of Arizona
[deleted] t1_j2epu2i wrote
[removed]
HelloDikfore t1_j2d9sb9 wrote
I’m sure the repubs will try to fix that
gozba t1_j2dgnyk wrote
Well, some good news, amongst all the shit that happened this year.
Romans-go-home t1_j2fax41 wrote
Passing a No-Exception abortion law should be unconstitutional simply because it mandates that doctors let critically ill patients die a painful death when a simple procedure could save that life.
No-Exception laws are (literally) 18th century law... And I mean that this way: It was created during a time when people simply did not know medicine or how it was practiced. (I hate to say this, but..... Grow up, people. You are living in the dark ages... on purpose.)
shoulda-known-better t1_j2ezem3 wrote
I would love to force these right wing religious fucks to actually 100% live by their own rules for 5 years, and the moment they fuck up they are never allowed to push thier views onto others ever again!!!! That would shut this shit down quick!!!!!
SplitPerspective t1_j2ewora wrote
If they start charging doctors the state will start running out of doctors.
maythesbewithu t1_j2dpese wrote
Why was it heard in Appellate court?
[deleted] t1_j2clfhe wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2cm34a wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2dmrig wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2dr5zp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2epnop wrote
[removed]
lightninggod3 t1_j2dty49 wrote
What if the abortion doctor fucks up and kills the mother?
I'm sure Arizona has abortion limits to as to when one could get an abortion, what if they give a woman an abortion at 8 months that shouldn't have been able to get an abortion in Arizona?
freshandminty t1_j2dwfp1 wrote
According to the NIH medical errors kill 100,000 people a year making it potentially the third leading cause of death in the US per John’s Hopkins. So I’m pretty sure there are processes in place for malpractice that leads to death without using that particular AZ law. Having said that, per the NIH again you are 14 times more likely to die from childbirth than abortion.
lightninggod3 t1_j2dwp9r wrote
Okay, that sounds good. Then, this post should be worded differently if abortion doctors can still be charged with malpractice.
PuellaBona t1_j2e1rc9 wrote
You realize that abortion isn't a specialty. There's no such thing as "abortion doctor"
lightninggod3 t1_j2e1uk6 wrote
The post literally says "abortion doctors"...
PuellaBona t1_j2e6ms1 wrote
That doesn't make it real.
lightninggod3 t1_j2e6yb4 wrote
Okay... However you read "abortion doctors" in the post, read it as though I'm mentioning the same doctors in my mention of "abortion doctors". Thanks.
PuellaBona t1_j2e74c3 wrote
Well, ok then.
[deleted] t1_j2e2mf7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2e4a9n wrote
[removed]
meekaANDmochi t1_j2e7m9m wrote
Abortions are one of the safest medical procedures you can have.
lightninggod3 t1_j2e83m3 wrote
Cool, and if the doctor fucked it up, patients should be able to sue. Thanks
meekaANDmochi t1_j2e8c30 wrote
Obviously. This has absolutely nothing to do with that though. You should look up the statistics on abortions. It’s one of the safest medical procedures out there. I don’t know why you’re spouting off about medical malpractice.
lightninggod3 t1_j2e900e wrote
Abortion doctors can’t be charged under Arizona is the post right? I'm making the point that the post is incorrect in saying this as malpractice exists and so the post is wrong. I don’t know why you care
meekaANDmochi t1_j2e9ok4 wrote
You’re not very bright, are you? The article is saying they can’t be charged criminally for performing abortions within the 15 weeks allowed by the law. Malpractice is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense. This ruling has no bearing on medical malpractice. You’re fighting an imaginary fight. Did you even read the article?
[deleted] t1_j2ea1b6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2em7mi wrote
[deleted]
xAtlas5 t1_j2eh0fn wrote
You could have just said "the headline sucks" instead of going on a rant about malpractice suits. Did you even bother to read the article?
FireproofSolid3 t1_j2el7yj wrote
It only sucks because you read it wrong. You don't "charge" someone for malpractice. It means something specific in this case.
MoonageDayscream t1_j2ezw9g wrote
It's you, not the headline. You are so focused on your silly narrative you can't see it makes perfect sense. As the headline states, this law cannot be used to prosecute doctors for abortions. That has absolutely no effect on the other laws (like malpractice) that a doctor could be prosecuted under. It most certainly does not say that a doctor can't be charged under any law, just that they can't be charged with violating this one, pre statehood, law.
commoncollector t1_j2e6m2g wrote
Abortions are not performed at 8 months unless the fetus is already dead or it will die shortly after birth, or it may kill the mother. Please go get educated on the subject before talking nonsense.
lightninggod3 t1_j2e763n wrote
Please understand I meant in the terms where 8 month abortion would NOT be allowed by the state and a doctor performs the abortion anyway. Please go get educated on reading before talking nonsense. Thanks.
ritzmachine t1_j2eov5h wrote
Why are you so obsessed with a scenario that has never happened and never would? You need to educate yourself about the development of the human fetus, and how pregnancy is handled at different stages. No medical professional is going to remove an 8 month fetus unless the mother's life is in danger, or it's being born early. In that case they would keep the new born baby in the hospital until they are sure it's healthy.
Your "What if?" is nonsense, because it would never happen and you can't seem to comprehend why.
lightninggod3 t1_j2ep0q4 wrote
I'm obsessed? Lmao what. Go touch grass
ritzmachine t1_j2es5z4 wrote
Yes, you are. You have replied in the double digits arguing with people over this, while completely ignoring how illogical everyone is telling you it is. You're obsessed because you can't let this nonsense scenario go. You're so stuck on some "8 month abortion" which has never happened.
And when showed that it doesn't make any sense, you reply the way you just did to me. "touch grass". Alright. You're still obsessed and wrong.
meekaANDmochi t1_j2e7j8z wrote
An “abortion” at 8 months is just a birth.
lightninggod3 t1_j2e7phh wrote
What are you talking about? I obviously mean "abortion" as in the killing of the fetus
meekaANDmochi t1_j2e826a wrote
Abortion is a medical procedure. The only reason a fetus would be terminated at 8 months is if something was gravely wrong with it or it was already dead. If the mother’s life was in danger, and the fetus was healthy, they’d remove the fetus via BIRTH (ya know c section) and still try to save the fetus. Nobody is killing a healthy fetus at 8 months.
lightninggod3 t1_j2e8c33 wrote
Gotcha, you see my point is if a doctor does kill a healthy fetus at 8 months., they should be charged
meekaANDmochi t1_j2e8er2 wrote
Why are you so focused on something that literally doesn’t happen?
lightninggod3 t1_j2e8q58 wrote
Why are you so focused on the idea of letting a doctor who kills a healthy fetus at 8 months go without being charged? Thanks.
meekaANDmochi t1_j2e8wom wrote
It’s a stupid argument because it’s not a thing based in reality! It does not happen! You’re worked up over something that is not real. Go ahead, try to find ONE instance of a doctor performing an abortion on a healthy fetus at 8 months in Arizona. YOU CANT BECAUSE ITS NOT REAL.
lightninggod3 t1_j2e9bjo wrote
You're the one getting worked up... Not real? It is something that could happen and if that happened I would want the doctor to be charged. The post says, "Abortion doctors can’t be charged under Arizona". I would want such a doctor charged if they kill a healthy fetus at 8 months. Thanks
meekaANDmochi t1_j2e9r41 wrote
Try reading beyond the headline and maybe your pea brain will be able to comprehend.
lightninggod3 t1_j2e9wxz wrote
The headline is wrong is my entire point. Maybe your small brain will comprehend that
meekaANDmochi t1_j2eambo wrote
Yeah I’m sure 😂 that’s why your original comment I replied to said nothing about the headline and then you continued to double down on why an abortion at 8 months is wrong.
lightninggod3 t1_j2eb4jg wrote
Okay... And? The post says, "Abortion doctors can’t be charged under Arizona law". The post is wrong precisely due to the fact that said "abortion doctors" can be charged in a case where a healthy fetus is killed after the 15-week point
meekaANDmochi t1_j2ebzl7 wrote
The “post” is more than a headline. There’s an entire article attached to it. If you read the article as intended instead of hyperfocusing on the title, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Regardless, you never mentioned the article once before being called out on not reading it. You’ve been fighting about 8 month abortions this entire time.
CmdrShepard831 t1_j2fblkh wrote
God I am just sitting here wondering what this guy is like in real life. It's like you're talking to a door or a lamp except both of those things have practical benefits.
soldforaspaceship t1_j2ea3eo wrote
Absolutely. I'm completely OK with deciding that in a hypothetical case that has never happened we can hold the doctor accountable. Feel better?
lightninggod3 t1_j2eam5y wrote
Awesome. Sounds good to me.
[deleted] t1_j2f3oo2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2egsrp wrote
[removed]
GreyLordQueekual t1_j2eu2kk wrote
Thats whataboutism.
exarkann t1_j2d219j wrote
Why are laws from pre-statehood even valid to begin with?