Well or they could just find a man to support them...
Kinda like what Wendy Davis did :whiste:
Well she could always take the conservative stance of forcing women to have children and then making sure her health insurance that she needs for that prenatal care is more expensive and that once the child is born there is as little assistance to her as possible so that they remain poor. And of course if that child is born via marital rape that the husband faces to consequences for that.
Well to be fair to them. She is basically the perfectly Democrat.
She stands up for the right to kill unborn children. And she has to have other people care for her own children.
As opposed to "We'll expend every resource to protect the fertilized egg. Once that egg is born, you're own your own, son"
Think what it will do to your daughters to have this come out on their mother in open court.
Those poor men. They had no choice. She must have evil powers to trap her victims.
She's done.
Just get a court order prohibiting her from using drugs or alcohol for 24 hours before legislative sessions! :thumbsup:
Should be noted that even right-wing sources are backing away from that a bit as it seems that's standard boiler plate in divorce settlement proceedings.
http://therightscoop.com/uh-oh-wend...o-use-drugs-alcohol-before-seeing-their-kids/
If only Rick Perry had the same thing, add presidential debates to that court order and Spidey might have won some bets he placed.
According to the Dallas lawyers posting about it on facebook, that's not the case in Texas. In order for language like that to go in a TRO, judges almost always require a demonstration of need for such an order.
That said, I'm sure we'll see the details born out over the next couple days.
So if a lawyer puts that boilerplate language in TRO request, a judge is going to say, NO, it's OK to use drugs and alcohol around kids and strike it?
be immediately restrained from . . . using illegal drugs or consuming alcohol within 24 hours before or during the period of possession of or access to the child.
Here would seem to be the key objectionable words:
One would think there would need to be a reason to keep an adult from say having a glass of wine with dinner the night before she has contact with the kids.
So if a lawyer puts that boilerplate language in TRO request, a judge is going to say, NO, it's OK to use drugs and alcohol around kids and strike it?
That's word for word part 27 of 28 part boilerplate that is put by the petitioner lawyers in their request.
Example is linked from:
http://therightscoop.com/uh-oh-wend...o-use-drugs-alcohol-before-seeing-their-kids/
Liberal lies a lot and is a complete douchebag
You might want to try reading that. http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/11/11015101App.pdf
Particularly the parts about the mother, NOT WENDY DAVIS, making false allegations of child abuse. And how it is not in the best interest of the children to have unsupervised visitation with the mother.
I don't think comparing the Wendy Davis situation to the situation in the court order is exactly helping the cause of Wendy Davis.
That's the one I was talking about, thanks for the correct pointer. The drug and alcohol #27 is part of a 28 point boilerplate on p37.
Of course it is boilerplate for a mother that the court ruled had made false allegations of child abuse, and for whom it was not in the best interests of the child to have unsupervised contact with her children.
Do you see why that might not be a case that supports Wendy Davis?
It's boilerplate, period. Cut and paste. That's why language is identical.
BTW, it's part of the petitioner lawyer's request, not judge's order.
You can add:
#29 "Prohibiting putting children in a rocket and sending them to the Moon." to the boilerplate, it doesn't mean that respondent has sent the kids to Moon in the past. Just means a lawyer wrote some stuff and got paid extra few hundred bucks for thinking it up.
You are missing my point entirely.
See for example: "It is also her ex-husband who asked a Texas District Court to issue a temporary restraining order against Wendy Davis in 2003."
You know the kind of restraining order used against mothers who make up allegations of abuse and for women unsupervised contact with their children is not a good idea.
The very fact that such an order exists seems to paint Wendy in a negative light. Especially for a woman touting her credentials as a single mother.
Exactly. The claim that this is "boilerplate" is ridiculous.You are missing my point entirely.
See for example: "It is also her ex-husband who asked a Texas District Court to issue a temporary restraining order against Wendy Davis in 2003."
This does not seem to be a typical court order, but instead the kind of restraining order used against mothers who make up allegations of abuse and for women unsupervised contact with their children is not a good idea.
The very fact that such an order exists seems to paint Wendy in a negative light. Especially for a woman touting her credentials as a single mother.
If you want to make this weak link a part of your chain, that's fine.
But if it's shown to be an overreach, it discredits the whole line of attack and makes Wendy Davis look like the victim of a GOP smear.
If you want to make this weak link a part of your chain, that's fine.
But if it's shown to be an overreach, it discredits the whole line of attack and makes Wendy Davis look like the victim of a GOP smear.