Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Enslave ALL THE THINGS!!1!
First, a little mood music:
At least in spirit, the Left just doesn’t like the 13th Amendment… or any other freedom…
“Curtailing first non-enumerated rights such as the ability to simply speak plainly via the creation of cultural stigma for holding opinions or manners of speech that only yesterday were commonplace and common-sense; and then turning that stigma into mob retaliation vis-a-vis getting people fired from their jobs, or outright violence in the streets aimed at people attending political rallies.
“Once certain thoughts and often seemingly insignificant liberties have been essentially criminalized, they move on to attacking those concrete rights that were once presumed unassailable, but have entered the realm of “polite debate” by a compliant populace too interested in maintaining some level of nonconfrontational comfort to strenuously object to every inch requested by the so-called ‘moderates’. Inches that in the rear-view mirror turn out to be miles and miles of forgotten or forsaken liberties.
“Make no mistake: The never-ending litany for ‘compromise’ requested on gun control does not come close to masking the goal of gun prohibition. They want you disarmed, and cultural inertia has made them less and less reticent to proclaim it.”
“Assuredly, every step away from our Founder’s intentions is framed by its proponents in terms of saving lives, or ensuring some liberty for some defined cohort. Their duplicitous nature is revealed when those exact arguments are dismissed when offered in service of a liberty or cohort the Left isn’t championing, such as the rights of the unborn, the health concerns of a populace whose borders are overrun with the non-vaccinated and/or no small number of violent criminals, the freedom of a landowner to manage one’s property, et cetera.”
But that’s just politics, right?
Just ask your doctor…
“If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.”
“[R]egulations could open health-care professionals and insurers to extensive legal liability if they decline to provide or pay for sex transition treatments, even if they are deemed medically unnecessary or unwise. Yet the medical community is not settled on the best treatment for those suffering from gender dysphoria and seeking sex-eradication surgery or hormonal treatment, Severino said, so rules about how and when those medical treatments should be administered are premature.”
And if your master says slaughter the innocent, you slaughter the innocent:
“After the rule was officially approved and announced May 13, several websites claimed the law’s lack of religious protections and inclusion of the phrase ‘termination of pregnancy’ as a type of discrimination mean that all medical agencies that receive any kind of federal funding would be forced to perform abortions.”
And when anything and everything can be declared to be a sexual assault, you’d better obey your masters… or else.
“Connecticut’s slapdash attempt to protect college students from responsibility for their drunken hookups looks like chum in the water for a legal feeding frenzy, as analyzed by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
“The state’s new affirmative-consent law, mirroring those in California and New York that govern how college students can have sex, not only shifts the burden of proof to students accused of sexual assault, says FIRE’s legal and legislative policy advocate, Shelby Emmett:
“HB 5376 states that “affirmative consent may be revoked at any time during the sexual activity by any person engaged in the sexual activity.’ The bill goes on to say that “it is the responsibility of each person to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of all persons engaged in the sexual activity to engage in the sexual activity and that the affirmative consent is sustained throughout the sexual activity.’
“What exactly constitutes sexual activity? Does a lingering hug count? What about kissing someone on the cheek or lips? While some might scoff at this question, the fact that the bill defines nine different terms, and that sexual activity is not among them, suggests that this question is one the authors of the bill found it convenient to avoid.”
You didn’t think you actually had any freedom, did you?