These people really have nothing better to do?
And many of these people really do need their Good Works on the force to do the saving, because God knows what they do to their wives and kids back home.
Making examples out of some number of unlucky peasants over otherwise trivial deviance that harms nearly nobody is one of the key jobs of men at arms.
Now, they may spend more time on "real crime" or collecting taxes by other names, but make no mistake this sort of stuff is stuff they (as an agency) must do if they are to properly serve the interests of their master.
This feels purposefully misleading. Did they manually watch hours and hours of footage, or is this the equivalent of "I searched an online corpus of hundreds of millions of documents" (I Googled it)
The inclusion of 83,000 seems more intended to quantify the scope of the surveillance accessible to these sheriffs.
It is about them feeling good.
but see, there are people who believe abortion is murder, and perhaps one of the worst forms of murder because of its victim’s extreme innocence since it has not caused any harm in this world.
You either accept the world as it is and you accept that some killings are unavoidable and some lives are more important than others, or you are consistent and you kill yourself, because for now it is not yet possible for a human to live without causing the death of other living creatures. (Not even a pure vegan can live without using services provided by the society that indirectly cause the death of some animals.)
A human who cannot discriminate between just and unjust killings certainly does not belong in law enforcement or in the creation of laws.
Even if we restrict the discussion to humans, ignoring other animals, where is exactly the distinction between killing an embryo and killing a cancer tumor? Both are humans, closely related but genetically distinct from the body in which they grow.
Or if someone self-mutilates, e.g. by cutting a finger, should they be convicted for murdering the finger? A finger is not able to live independently, but the same is true for an embryo.
There are many other similar arguments, so in my opinion those who want for abortions to be punished by law are not people with different opinions, they are just illogical people with wrong opinions, whose wrong opinions cannot be ignored, because they cause them to become the aggressors of other people and it is this which cannot be accepted.
Why is equating human and chicken life necessary for you to accept that people are entitled to their beliefs?
> A finger is not able to live independently, but the same is true for an embryo.
The finger is the person's DNA. The child is not their DNA.
In a 2025 University of Iowa single-center study (published in JAMA Network Open), out of 22 infants born alive at 21 weeks gestation, resuscitation was attempted in 17. 6 survived to NICU discharge (about 35%), and 1 remained hospitalized.
You assume that a lady getting an abortion is not committing murder--these folks clearly think she is.
(We don't need to argue about whether it is in fact murder, or whether if it is that the murder is justified or not--just understand that there are people that believe differently, and apparently they're willing to expend police resources on it.)
That's exactly the problem: we do. Not here, specifically, but if someone's false beliefs have grown to the point that they are hurting others over them, they need to be stopped.
Yes, those people with "false beliefs". Ah, if only we could force everyone to have true beliefs. And it's not against freedom of thought and consciousness, oh no! We're only against actually false beliefs. That, you know, have been proven wrong. Or at least for which the proofs of incorrectness exist that we believe are correct. But since our beliefs true, this is fine.
The police themselves may consider it stupid and counterproductive, but their opinion does not count until the next elections.
Holy fuck. Even for someone who has quickly earned a name for himself and his insane takes, this is a strong entry.
Bravo, ButlerianJihad!
Incest is not always consensual, and incest may be intra-family molestation or sexual abuse. In those cases, certainly the "rape exceptions" cover mothers who seek to abort their unborn children.
However, incest is not always non-consensual, such as between ordinary adults who just cross a "bright line boundary" and have a sexual affair that they may or may not regret. So is this why there are so many exceptions for "non-rape incest" abortions? Why, to avoid being exposed to shame or having, for example, siblings need to co-parent their rather illicit offspring that nobody will talk about? What's unique about "non-rape incest" that it requires its own carved-out exception that is so often baked into all the laws prohibiting other kinds of abortions?
Contrast with the simple prenatal paternity test.
The article is misleading, but that should never get in the way of righteous rage that helps a person form identity and purpose in an otherwise existential and empty vacuum of meaning.
That article links to https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/she-got-abortion-so-te... which links to https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas...
The second article states what you are saying, but the third article says that the information given in the second article was a lie.
According to internal Johnson County Sheriff's Office files released under the Texas Public Information Act, the entire "self-administered abortion" narrative was fabricated by a violent felon:
https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/crime/article31451... https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/feb/04/eastern-wa-flo...
The Ex-Girlfriend's Account: The woman later informed investigators that she had actually suffered a natural miscarriage after her ex-boyfriend physically assaulted her.
The False Fetus Evidence: The ex-boyfriend—seeking to deflect blame for the assault—collected a blood clot from the miscarriage, presented it to the police, and lied by claiming his ex-girlfriend had intentionally taken illegal abortion pills to end a pregnancy.
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-police-cameras-us...
The Intent of the Search: The police reports later clarified that while the deputy typed "had an abortion" into the Flock Safety tracking system, they were actually attempting to locate the woman and her children because she was fleeing from this domestic violence situation.
Because the initial report was based on a malicious and fabricated claim by an abuser, an official clinical timeline of the pregnancy was never established or verified in the official "death investigation" file.
Here are privacy respecting ones: https://www.privacyguides.org/en/health-and-wellness/#menstr...
One method is get off your smart phone and boot tails and do the searches there. Maybe that is something EFF can make known. Like list trusted onion sites that have information where women can go and get help.
You, sir, have a way with words.
A single news article ever, or 1000 news articles that don’t impact “you specifically” are less effective than measured repetition across multiple fronts.
Then we can persecute the sinners that have premarital sex, eat pork, curse, work on Sundays, operate machinery on Saturdays or any sort of other backwards hick shit these idiots believe.
Why'd we not just let the Confederacy go?
I would agree that at conception we have a human life. But, not that we have a human person. There are no thoughts, emotions, memories, hopes, dreams. There is a very strong potential for a person. But, at conception what makes a person is not there yet.
At some point in time between the human existing a single living cell and the human voting in elections and joining the military, a person develops. But, it’s not a definite transition point in time. It’s a gradient.
Unfortunately, for practical reasons, the law must pick a definite point in time. The consensus seems to be “around the time that the fetus can be kept alive and continue developing independent from the mother using current technology.” A practical choice, for sure.
One might argue that the official transition point should be a bit earlier. But, that’s not the core of the disagreement.
The core seems to be that some living people do not appear to take into consideration the difference between being alive vs. being a person.