Catholics favored Bush and went 50% Obama to 48% Romney. Trending republican heavily http://www.salon.com/2015/03/15/the…

Perhaps because it isn't a very good point, given that Catholics are fairly evenly split between the political parties whereas religion-based healthcare restrictions are only being pursued by republicans.

Huh? Catholics lean republican but not by much. The Democratic party is not pushing to restrict reproductive health options. Ergo, the problem is Republicans.

“Well, it’s clear that the videos were made by con artists. They are deceptively-edited hit pieces that are provoking attacks on an organization that is profoundly beneficial to healthcare in this country. In opposing Planned Parenthood, how does it feel to support stripping tens of millions of Americans - mostly…

There needs to be a concerted effort to call them what they are: forced birthers.

eh, I wouldn’t be surprised if some idiots have been swayed by this. Plenty of people never dig into issues - they pick up a vague sense that something is fucked up about Planned Parenthood - the reek of a scandal - and then can feel smug when passively supporting the politicians defunding it.

Prevented? No. There is no foolproof way to avoid victimization when you go out into the world. You can only mitigate risk. Rape can only be prevented by deterring would-be rapists from raping.

But doesn't being a pro-sex work feminist mean wanting people to have the option to engage in sex work, rather than believing no one ever regrets it?

Some survivors only go the civil route because they distrust the ability of the police and the rest of the criminal justice system to handle the matter properly. Some because the burden of proof in civil court is only preponderance of the evidence.

You are spot on.

I have no idea what you are. All of your suppositions about me so far have been wrong. I have repeatedly provided very specific evidence about why you made misstatements here. Of course the current existence of mandatory minimums does not establish that “[t]he intent and purpose of the criminal justice system has…

Admitted to the bar in ‘09, currently supervise other lawyers in addition to my own cases, you?

Because you appear to have a poor grasp on how the law works.

Please, please tell me you're not a lawyer.

Nope, you emphasized that it “has never been.” I noted that while the current thrust is weighted towards retribution, it’s not like “rehabilitation” has been absent from the law in terms of officially-stated purpose. The way the law is applied can be quite different from purposes enshrined in laws. Go ask literally…

You’re free to continue to make a fool out of yourself. The point of a statement of purpose in a statute is to apply to the entire statute. That way the legislature doesn't need to keep repeating itself in each section. But the true coup de grace is your last sentence - this entire discussion is about rehabilitating…

“How about I make sweeping false statements, then double down, but no one is allowed to call me on it.” Nope, sorry, that's not how this works.

Quakers were integral to the formation of the criminal justice system in this country and very much interested in rehabilitation. They famously apologized for thinking solitary confinement would aid rather than exacerbate rehabilitative efforts.

Tell that to the Quakers. Are you claiming that there are no federal or state laws that declare one of the intents and purposes of incarceration to be rehabilitation? Because that would be blatantly false. It’s true that the criminal justice system at present is far more heavily weighted towards retribution than…

Hilarious to put “children” in quotes as if there is any dispute that a 12 or 13 year old is a child. Get a grip. No one is saying that they didn't do something wrong, but children are held to different standards for very good scientific reasons.