I love how you blame Bernie voters while neglecting the raging truth that the entire democratic party had 50 years to codify abortion into every state constitution; we had every opportunity to draft counter legislation guaranteeing guaranteed income for all mothers to help counter the inevitable impact of this. We…

You’re destroying the planet as infetility is nature’s balance. Respect that and get a dog.

Can anyone tell me how many non binary are getting pregnant these days? 50? 250? 2,500? Maybe we’ll reinforce our rights by reminding the world that women have highly unique needs and therefore highly unique rights that become lessened culuturally and politically, every time we try to be “inclusive” by excluding…

court: since it is not a woman but rather a pregnant person, you do own them.

If we want women to be seen as fully human we’ll need to push back on neutering womanhood from the English language. We can protect non binary people without sacrificing our own identities, because when we do, we lose our rights.

Thank you for not neutering women from the lexicon of pregnancy.

You feel hopeless because people have reminded you that in some cases, a woman can own the scale of guilt for an abusive relationship. It is not common, but it does happen. Maybe you should just admit that.

Trolls = people you don’t agree with. Awwww poooooor you.

They will BOTH continue to work in Hollywood - this is the crowd that stood up for a man who won a standing ovation while receiving the Oscar ten minutes after assaulting someone on live global television....Fuck, maybe Will Smith will be their co-star in both their comebacks

I don’t understand why they didn’t claim she had multiple partners who abused her and therefore was not speaking specifically about just one. 

I believe she is a liar but her defense should be sued because the easiest defense was on the table and they ignored it. The Op Ed did not say she had only ONE domestic partner who abused her. She could have said she had multiple partners who were abusive and that the article was not necessarily about Depp. Harder to…

You sound like a Trumper desperately hunting for fault in vote ballots, and you’re acting like you’ve never once in your life neglected to fill out a line of something important in a moment of stress or unfamiliarity, which gets quickly corrected. It’s a bit rich...

Clerical omissions happen all the time on court paperwork per jurors who are unaccustomed to the process - it does not negate the evidence, process or deliberation, the way voting workers do not negate ballots because their hands touched them...

He is a very wealthy, poorly aging drug addict desperate for love and therefore a prime target for a sloppy golddigger who literally baited, manipulated and triggered a medically ill person into extended drug abuse...yes for money AND access. Hard fail on her part.

We understand your emotions are not law.

His lawyers never said that moron

Apparently you did not read the charges in full. Tone down your emotions and examine the question like an objective entity, if that is even possible. The jury ruled correctly per the question asked. You just don’t like the ruling. Neither do I. But thats how it is. Fucking deal.

It has nothing to do with the headline - it has everything to do with a jury far more immersed in the evidence than any of us not aligning to their political views, which makes them no better than the rightest of the right.

The abusive baiting and manipulation of a very rich drug addict by a sober gold digger is what triggered the backlash. Full stop.

Thank you for proving opinions are like assholes...