According to the study by the Institute of Labor Economics, the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022 may have resulted in the birth of 32,000 additional babies. After the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization births rose by an average of 2.3 percent in states enforcing abortion bans or restrictions. That may be less than many pro-choice advocates suggested, but it still amounts to tens of thousands of babies.
It is not clear how other factors may have affected this increase from increased immigration across the Southern border to changing economic conditions. Even before Dobbs, the rate of abortion had been falling steadily in the United States.
Roughly a quarter of women of reproductive age face increased driving distances due to states with bans on abortion.
Overall, the increase for women in that age bracket went up roughly three percent.
In a related story,Carson City District Court Judge James Russell has ruled against putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot for 2024 to make abortion a constitutional right. In his opinion, Judge Russell found that the amendment violated the “single subject rule” by including various issues beyond abortion:
“This Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the Petition embraces a multitude of subjects that amount to logrolling,” Russell wrote. “Subsection 1, alone, embraces the following subjects: prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion care, management of a miscarriage, and infertility care … Thus, it is improper to characterize these broad categories as a ‘single subject’ because there is no explanation as to how these provisions are functionally related.”
Greeting, I’ve been browsing your website for a long time, I’m grateful you’re alive!
Jonathan: There is another problem with the “tens of thousands of babies” you think are a good thing as a result of the the Dobbs decision. How are going to care for those “babies” after they are born? It won’t be the “pro-life” crowd or the GOP. They are too busy trying to get more abortion bans passed.
The problem is that the US is a uniquely dead place to give birth. The US has the highest infant and maternal rates of any other high-income country. If GOP has it’s way the situation is bound to get worse. Next year the GOP proposes massive cuts to the WIC and SNAP that provide critical food assistance programs for infants and children. The GOP would reduce the monthly fruit and vegetable benefit from $25 to $11 (a 56% reduction) for 1-4 year olds, from $49 to $13 ( a 70% reduction) for pregnant and post partum mothers and from $49 to $15 (a 69% reduction) for breast feeding mothers. And these reductions come even when the benefits are pathetically low. WIC, in particular, has shown many positive outcomes–including reduced risks of low birth weight and fewer infant deaths.
Joe Biden, the guy you think should be impeached, is opposed to cuts in WIC and SNAP. It seems he and the Dems are the only ones who really care about the “babies”.
DM
About 3.6M babies are born in the US each year. 30,000 aditional babies – which is still BELOW the precovid number of births is NOT some consequential change in anything.
If the women in question truly do not want these babies – which I highly doubt, they can put them up for adoption.
Prior to rowe (and post rowe) the majority of babies are not the result of two people deliberately planning to have a child.
As to what is the pro-life plan – that has never been in question.
AGAIN if you have given birth to a child that you do not want
Almost 200,000 children are adopted in the US each year. While the majority of those are by step parents of other family members, there are 18,000 adoptions of children from women who chose to give up their child. For each and every one of those children put up for adoption there are DOZENS of parents looking to adopt for each available child.
To the extent there is a problem, it is the shortage of available children and the barriers the state puts in the way of parents seeking to adopt.
Any fertile woman that wishes to have a child can find an available penis, and eventually have a child.
There are no criminal records checks, no financial checks on their ability to support. No required counselling, or parent training,
They do not need approval by an agency or a court. They do not have to hire an agency.
These and much more are the requirements imposed on people who adopt.
Further the state CONSTANTLY refuses to allow a parent to adopt, FORCING the child to remain in the custody of the state – where historically the child is far more likely to be abused than with any randomly selected person.
The US has the highest infant mortality rate because the US pioneers efforts to save premature births.
The US uniquely counts as live births babies born as early as 7 months.
The FACT is that for each length of Gestation the US has the HIGHEST survival rate in the world.
Your crap argument is the consequence of the US deliberately trying to save premature babies.
Then you go into nonsense regarding an assortment of programs and money.
Join reality – there is virtually no government program of any kind that has actually been net positive at scale.
The same stupid arguments you are making were claimed regarding Clinton’s changes to “end welfare as we know it”.
While in the real world the consequences were the OPPOSITE. Severely restricting government benefits not merely resulted in millions of people getting off of public assistance, it also resulted in higher standards of living for PRECISELY those people.
Pretty much universally the elimination of government programs – whether reducing the welfare state or eliminating the ICC have had dramatically positive results.
If you actually cared about the people you claim to you would be supporting the efforts to undo Obama’s undoing of the Clinton reduction in government programs.
I would separately suggest some familiarity with the ACTUAL effects of the programs you claim are positive.
Section 8 was phenomenally successful as a cherry picked pilot at Chicago’s Cabrini green.
So successful that Congress immediately nationallized the program, which at scale transported drug dealers and criminals from inner city h311 holes of their own creation into minority suburbs reaking havoc on moderately successful minority families – increasing rates of drug addition and crime.
Head start showed promise as a pilot program. The Data on Head start show that it is a waste, that by 3rd grade there is no difference in performance of head start students and those not in the program.
The FACT Dennis is that most of these programs DO NOT WORK.
SOMETIMES Programs actually work – at SMALL SCALE – like Section 8 did.
But there is a vast difference between a small program that cherry picks the clients most likely to succeed and on that is nation wide applying to everyone.
Left wing nuts do not understand that helping people is HARD. Charities have had problems figuring this out for ever.
We have sent $1T in aid – public and private to Africa over the past 40 years. The actual benefits ? ZERO.
$1T is complete and total waste.
There are extensive studies of the failure of aide to do any good – and often make things in africa worse.
Charity is hard.
Government charity is near universally worse. often making peoples lives WORSE.
Deport all the illegals that invaded since Joe was installed. We would have plenty of money to support American citizens who belong here.
What is missing from the current state of the Dobbs decision, the names.
Names of all those dead women, dead because they were denied life saving abortions.
That was the claim. But we have zero names.
Early on we were fed the lies about a pre teen girl being denied, but facts emereged showing the entire thing was theater. Exaggerated to push a lie.
Where are all the dead women resulting from Dobbs? We know the left are real gouls when it comes to exploiting pain and suffering.
Looks like Darren Smith is back. So only far-right yahoos can comment, plus token liberal Dennis.
Jonathan: It’s pretty clear you oppose abortion. And now you are crowing about the recent report that live births have increased by a modest 2.2 % since the Dobbs decision. Hardly something to get excited about.
On the flip side there is nothing to crow about. In the states that have prohibited abortion there have been dire consequences for women. A NIH study pointed out that women who wanted an abortion but were denied one “were more likely to experience serious pregnancy complications, poor long-term health, chronic pain, and even death”. Is that an acceptable price for banning abortion? And the full impact of abortion bans falls hardest on the poor and people of color. Is that also an acceptable price to pay for abortion bans?
And you even suggest increased immigration across the Southern border “may be a contributing factor’ to the increase in live births. There are no studies or data I could find to support your claim. Could you actually be suggesting that increased immigration might solve the problem of increasing the birth rate? Hardly the position that will endear you with DJT or with the GOP hardliners on immigration.
Coincidentally, many countries in Latin America, like Mexico, Argentina and Columbia, are bucking the traditional Catholic Church position that abortion is a “mortal sin”. They are liberalizing their abortion laws. Countries in Asia are doing the same. They are trying to implement the position take by the UN that abortion is a “fundamental human right”.
So the trend in most of the world is to uphold abortion rights. The US is the outliar. All of our Western allies, including Canada, made abortion legal years ago. And who are our only allies in the fight against abortion. Countries in Africa and the Middle East. Great partners!
Thankfully, the vast majority of Americans support the right to abortion. Abortion rights advocates have successfully overturned abortion bans in several states. And more are coming. There will be constitutional amendments on the ballot next year in several states to reestablish a woman’s right to choose. The anti-abortion crowd is now on the defensive. And that’s a good thing!
Dennis McIntyre, the Soviet Democrats’ version of Baghdad Bob who has been assigned to shadow Turley’s columns to attempt to sell Soviet Democrat theology has arrived on scene!
To wit: “And you even suggest increased immigration across the Southern border “may be a contributing factor’ to the increase in live births.”
Soviet Democrats like Bolshevik Barack and Bribery Biden and their Baghdad Bobs like Dennis McIntyre continue to claim – wrong: demand – that the criminal Illegal Aliens that they specifically invited to flood into America as Guest Democrat Voters aided by their refusal to enforce existing immigration laws must be called “immigrants”.
Not by their proper legal term “Illegal Aliens”. Illegal Aliens who enter the US as criminals and then immediately commence committing a host of non-immigration law felonies to continue their criminal careers now that they’re in America.
And of course, Baghdad Bob INSISTS there is NO WAY that Illegal Aliens realize that if Bribery Biden loses the next election they could be thrown out on their criminal asses. NO WAY those Guest Democrat Voters would EVER make sure they permanently glue themselves into America! Guaranteeing they get to stay by being one of the two involved in popping out an Illegal Alien child onto American soil to protect them with that American birthright citizenship. That could NEVER happen! Those Illegal Aliens wouldn’t use children to protect themselves like their buddies in Hamas use children to protect themselves.
These are the Soviet Democrats’ same valuable future American, now criminal Illegal Aliens coming here as Guest Democrat Voters, who care so much about life and their children, that they will give their little daughters to drug cartels to smuggle into America to get them safely and legally over the border in the future.
Giving those daughters to the drug cartels along with a little rape kit for little Maria, with instructions on which pills to take each time she’s raped during the journey, if Pablo won’t agree to use the included condoms also in their cute little rape kit. Such wonderful quality parents and future American citizensthe Soviet Democrats choose for their future American Soviet Democrat voters to enrich America’s social fabric!
“All of our Western allies, including Canada, made abortion legal years ago.”
If the Soviet Democrats’ Baghdad Bob, Dennis McIntyre, weren’t here lying his Marxist nether regions off, his keyboard wouldn’t be making a sound.
Canada has ZERO abortion law: the R v. Morgentaler decision of nearly 40 years ago simply said the previous existing legislation was unconstitutional and instructed Canada’s Parliament to go back and rewrite the law. In the same decision they told Morgentaler and the Baby Butcher Crow that there was no right to an elective birth control abortion anywhere in Canada’s shiny new Constitution Act. Just as there isn’t a right to elective birth control abortions contained in the American Constitution.
So the Canadian Parliament, instead of acting as they were instructed to rewrite that section of their Criminal Code, has instead chose to just punt. In the years since they’ve let everybody sort out what would and wouldn’t cause the public to boot a sitting government out of either party.
Pretty much what has been going on in every single state before Dobbs, and particularly since Dobbs said it’s a state issue, not federal.
It’s telling that Canada’s Lenin Liberals, like their Marx Brothers From Another Mother, the Soviet Democrats, claim in every recent election that if their opponents are elected, they’ll pass a law completely banning elective birth control abortions. And like the Soviet Democrats here in the USA (including our Baghdad Bob), the Lenin Liberals in Canada can’t point to a single opposition party candidate who is saying that he does indeed promise to ban all abortions.
The Marx Brothers’ versions of Baghdad Bob use the same lie on BOTH sides of the border to make elective birth control an election issue.
One other Canadian fact that Baghdad Bob/Dennis McIntyre didn’t want to mention: Canada won’t even consider allowing the elective birth control abortions right up to the moment of birth that many Soviet Democrat run states and federal party leaders already have or are demanding for the entire USA.
“Thankfully, the vast majority of Americans support the right to abortion.”
The vast majority of Americans, when told that Baghdad Bob/Dennis McIntyre is shilling for the Soviet Democrats wanting a law forcing all states to allow elective birth control abortions right up to the moment of birth, recoil in horror and suddenly realize that that Baghdad Bob/Dennis McIntyre and the Soviet Democrats are monsters and butchers not too different than the baby butchers of Hamas.
Muslim faith, BTW, prohibits elective birth control abortions. So Soviet Democrat baby butchers like our Baghdad Bob would get one of those one way airmail trips from rooftops of the buildings – right beside their fellow Soviet Democrats in the Alphabet Sex Pride Battalion. So much for Soviet Democrats surviving their intersectional partners in the “Reproductive Rights” wars…
Which is why the Soviet Democrats and their Baghdad Bobs like Dennis McIntyre are NEVER going to campaign on their desire to pass federal laws forcing the states to allow taxpayer funded elective birth control abortions right up to the moment of birth.
They hide behind vague terms like “freedom of choice” while avoiding any questions like “up until what point” for elective birth control abortions.
They’re going to hide that just as hard as they lie that there are Republican nominees claiming they intend to pass laws banning all abortions if they win the next election.
Bad Baghdad Bob; bad Biden Bolshevik Birthing Boy.
If it ain’t lyin’, it’s keyboard ain’t making a sound…
“Jonathan: It’s pretty clear you oppose abortion. ”
I would bet money that you are incorrect.
JT is reporting a result. I am not sure where in his article he expresses an opinion on the facts he produces.
“Derek Chauvin, former officer convicted in George Floyd’s killing, stabbed in prison”
– CNN
________
Chauvin was in the custody of, and must have been protected by, the Federal Correctional Institution, Tucson, according to federal law.
Embryos, fetuses and babies are in the custody of, and must be protected by, their mothers, according to natural and God-given law.
Embryos, fetuses, and babies are separate and distinct human beings who have the power of choice and dominion over their own bodies.
Embryos, fetuses, and babies demonstrate their preference and choice to live by vigorously developing, growing, and persisting in the womb.
I hate to inform you of facts, but 30-50% of fertilized eggs die in the 1st 48 hours. I guess their “will to live” wasn’t strong enough.
What the —-???
___________________
“That dudn’t make any sense!”
– George W. Bush
____________________
If they die, abortion is moot, isn’t it, brrrrrrainiac?
“A NIH study pointed out that women who wanted an abortion but were denied one “were more likely to experience serious pregnancy complications, poor long-term health, chronic pain, and even death”.”
So much for the credibility of the NIH.
Is it that difficult for you to understand this result is absurd ?
If an NIH study showed that women who wanted a red corvette but were denied one were more likely to get cancer – would you treat that as credible ?
Even hypothetically what is the potential causal link between wanting an abortion and later health issues ?
Further the Data Turley cites indicates that ther e were a total of 32,000 additiona births since Dobbs – that is a little over a year.
That is out of approximately 3.6M or a 0.8% increase.
Births in 2020 and 2021 were significantly depressed from covid, and STILL have not recovered yet,
Frankly it is a stretch to conclude that there was ANY increase in births due to Dobbs, as noted were are STILL Below the precovid numbers and the precovid trend has NOT been restored.
Next, Dobbs did NOT change the ability of a single preganant person in the US to get an abortion if the want.
At worst it increased the cost slightly.
If you want an abortion in a state with more restrictive abortion laws you have 3 choices:
Change you mind,
Get the abortion early – while it is still legal and when it is cheaper and LESS harmful to you – another reason your NIH study is garbage.
Restrictive abortion laws push women to get abortions when they are SAFER.
Go somewhere where abortions are less restricted.
So no one has been “denied” an abortion.
John Say: Boy, you were in a hurry to respond to my comment. So many misspelled words: “Dobbs did not change the ability of a single preganant (sic) person in the US to get am abortion if the [sic] want…So no one has been ‘denied’ an abortion”. You are apparently not paying attention to the spell check function on this blog. Oh well, haste makes waste. And there is lots of it in your comment.
While the Dobbs decision itself did not outlaw abortion, do you think it is mere coincidence that following the decision 21 states have passed some form of abortion bans? Come on, John, use your head! In my red state it was the first one to re-implement an abortion ban that had been abeyance because of Roe. In my state abortion is now a felony. Anyone who performs an abortion risks up to 10 years in prison. Hospitals are refusing to perform abortions except when the life of the mother is threatened. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. It is one of harshest abortion bans in the country. So it not unsurprising that the number of abortions has declined. So you are dead wrong. Abortions in my state are being “denied” every day!
This doesn’t mean women (and children) are not getting abortions. Recent studies in my state show pregnant women are leaving the state for abortions where it is legal. But you bizarrely claim “at worst it increased the cost slightly”. What have you been smoking? Pregnant women have to take off work to get an abortion. That’s a loss of wages. Then there is the cost of travel and lodging. If you have to fly the cost of a round trip airline ticket these days is not exactly cheap. The total cost could be in the hundreds of dollars–maybe more. For the rich they can easily afford the cost. But for the poor it’s not a “choice” they can’t make.
So you are wrong on the facts and the law. Something you often do. So here’s my Q for you. If you had a 14 year old who got pregnant from rape what would YOU do? Would you insist she carry the fetus to term? Or would you do what I would–take your daughter somewhere where abortion is still legal? Come on John, what would you do?
DM the catholic position on abortion has ALWAYS been that the death of the mother is not merely an acceptable price, but REQUIRED if the alternative is the death of the child.
You can disagree with that position. But that does not change it.
It was quite commonplace 100+ years ago for doctors to have a choice between saving the unborn infant and saving the mother in a child birth that had complications. Today that choice almost never occurs.
Regardless, the position of the catholic church has not changed.
I would further note that there is not an inherent reason that when one must make a choice between the life of the unborn child and that of the mother, why you should pick one over the other.
We fortunately only very rarely today are put into a position of having to choose between one life and another.
But there is no inherent objective criteria for doing so.
As to the position of the church, it is rooted in the fact that the woman has had atleast a decade – likely much more, of life, and the unborn has had none.
You are free to feel differently. But as I noted there is not some objective basis for deciding which of two innocent lives to save when there is a choice and you can only save one.
But you are not even presenting that case.
The abortion argument YOU are making is that we must kill tens of thousands of unborn to save a few women.
And you are unlikely to be correct on that. Last I checked late term abortion was not safer than child birth and early abortion which is safer was legal everywhere.
John: “…to save a few women”?
Women are not expendable. Don’t throw them away. As to the choice, I think saving the life of “the mother” is most important. After all, she may live to breed good little future Catholics.
Logic eludes you.
A nation can not buck the catholic churches position that abortion is a sin.
A nation can only decide whether abortion is legal.
Countries do not have the power to decide what is a sin, just as churches do not have the power to decide what is legal.
Countries in Asia are doing the same ?
China – the largest asian country is likely moving towards making abortion illegal – that is after nearly 400M abortions in a few decades under the 1 child policy.
Why is China (an most of asia) actually headed the opposite way you claim ?
Because like a significant portion of the world – they are in the midst of unsustainable population DECLINE.
Those like you rant and want to take over everyone’s lives and infringe on their lives based opn Global warming that is only consequential in computer models which have never tracked reality.
Yet, to varying degrees 2/3 of the world is in dangerous population decline. This will disrupt economies and lower standard of living.
Many countries are no actively encouraging women to have children. Even incentivizing it.
Most of the countries doing so are politically socialized.
It is a small step from the carrot to the stick.
And I would note that most of the world – including most of the west has more restrictive abortion laws than the US. Late term abortions are crimes in most of the world.
regardless, when you fixate on “the common good” over the rights of the individuals – it will be just as easy to force women to have children as to force people to be vacinated.
If you think the right is a threat to a womens right to choose, just watch as population decline becomes worse.
While I disagree with Dobb’s – the part they got right is there is no Right to an abortion.
If the majority can create a right, it can just as legitimately take a right away.
Rights do not exist becaue of the support of the majority.
They exist despite the oposition of the majority.
We have seen the idiotic creation of faux rights by state constitutional amendment.
Those that have occured so far are absymal ideas and will haunt us in the future.
Those that have passed have been in states that can pass constitutional amendments easily.
Which means they can be removed easily.
Turley specifically cited an effort in Navada that has failed – by being stupid and trying to put the kitchen sink into an amendment.
While I have problems with all the efforts to specifically manufature a right to an abortion – because abortion is NOT and can not be a right.
I would fully support a constitutional amendment to reflect an ACTUAL right, whether of the US or state constitutions, that would concurrently create a LIMITED right to an abortion. And that would be a constitutional amendment recognizing the right to control of ones own body.
Regardless, you claim that there will be all kinds of states with state constitutional amendments.
Absolutely Democrats are trying to force that onto ballots – becuase despite the FACT that there is no post Dobbs crisis, Democrats beleive – probably correctly that doing so gets them votes. But there is a huge problem – that is a ONE TIME ONLY sugar high.
In 2024 – Abortion will not be on the ballot in OH or OK as an example. It appears it will not be in NV.
It probably will be in AZ, despite democrats efforts it will not be in FL – it is very hard to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in most states.
You are correct that Democrats WANT abortion on the ballot. But whether it gets on the ballot where you need it, is an open question.
While I have crtiticised your abortion amendments – they are a bad idea, because abortion is not a right.
They are also a bad idea, because the actual view of the majority is much more nuanced than you claim. The majority wants abortion to the “safe, legal and rare” as bill clinton used to say. For decades there has been majority support for every more restrictions on abortion – without outright banning it. Super majorities in most of the country want a near absolute ban on abortion after 20weeks.
It is near certain over time that will move to 15weeks and then even 8weeks.
I would note that is extremely reasonable. There are only very rare justifications for late abortions.
Most people do NOT support abortion as a means of birth control.
But those of you on the left are incapable of nuance or grasping what people ACTUALLY want.
Nor understanding that peoples wants do change over time.
And why should anyone care what the US says ?
Why is the pro-life people being on the “defensive” a good thing ?
You are constantly making shallow arguments without thought.
Whether the majority of americans support legal abortion in some form, they also do NOT want unlimited abortions through to birth.
I beleive that dobbs was wrongly decided. There is a right to control your own body – which is a REAL right, and more broad than abortion, while at the same time NOT concocting a psuedo right to an abortion.
I beleive that right to control your own body is a natural right and that it does NOT belong in the purview of the states.
Frankly NO RIGHT is properly the domain of the states. Throughout the entire country we all must have exactly the same RIGHTS.
We should not be kicking actual rights to the states.
Regardless, to the extent that pro-life advocates are on the defensive – that would be because the left has weaponized government against them.
Dennis,
Other news that you have not been following.
Each week comes with more and more video or other information deflating the J6 claims.
In addition to the Capital security and CP body cam video that is being made available.
we learned of the extend to Metro Police presence at J6 – and we have their Body Cam video, which is providing MULTIPLE sources demonstrating that the left’s J6 narative – like the collusion delusion, and the Russian disinformation claim – and a whole lot of other nonsense is a lie.
I listened to someone from Treasury testifying to the Fraud in the Covid relief programs.
The scale of that fraud is enormous, but what struck me about the testimony was how much it resmbled election fraud.
People applying for checks for Dead people. people making claims in multiple states, or providing false information.
Or filing and getting paid multiple times.
Judge Ergon has been overturned on interlocutory appeal in the Trump case 4 times so far.
Willis told the court that the Trump election case is going to run into 2025 – that is of course if it even makes it to trial.
With each day that passes it is going to be harder and harder to get an outcome before the election.
And the closer we get to the primaries the more likely appeals courts will stall everything as election interference.
Though frankly they should throw this all out as the garbage it is.
Smith is losing on a regular basis in FL – though that is not getting reported.
Canon is correctly trying to figure out what to do about the FACT that Smith illegally has been gaming the system.
Smith used a grand jury in DC to concoct an indictment in FL. This has her – and many others really pissed.
That is forumn shopping of the most egregious nature. It is not likely that she is going to throw the whole thing out.
But it is highly likely that she will exclude alot of “evidence” – such as Howells, violating attorney client priviledge.
Further as Cannon is the lead case – her decisions will become controlling if upheld on other cases.
Though frankly we are rapidly approaching the point where the Trump cases are dead.
It took 2 years for the James case to get into a court room – and democrats are expecting that the Willis, and Smith cases are actually going to trial anytime soon.
The overwhelming majority of polls are now showing Trump up – in the popular vote against Biden. That has NEVER been the case before.
There has been nearly a 10pt swing between 2020 and 2024, and Biden only won 2020 by 44,000 votes in 3 states.
You are going to need abortion on the ballot everywhere. The house is not favorable to democrats in 2024, The senate is much worse.
If the election were held today Trump would win almost 300 electoral votes.
The election is a long way away – but no incumbent has actually ever recovered this far down.
Polling indicates that even among the voters who Hate Trump, Trump is beating biden by a small majority.
Trump is currently winning every age cohort – including 18-34. He has increased his vote share in every demographic,
Jews, hispanics, blacks. asians.
While there are calls for Biden to drop out – these are actually relatively weak. Because Democrats have a Harris problem.
Harris loses to Trump – or anyone else, worse than Biden does, but the democratic party is over a barrel. If Biden drops out,
they are NOT going to be able to go with anyone but harris without massive numbers of voters sitting the election out.
And if they do go with Harris they lose.
The Biden corruption problem is drip, drip, dripping away. Republicans will likely impeach sometime early next year.
Though honestly I do not think they need to. They just need to keep up the investigations.
I think that House republicans should OPENLY state that this is an election year and they are going to leave removing Biden to the voters.
But that they will proceed forward with the impeachment investigation to inform voters.
Regardless, there is no way that the corruption investigation improves for Biden. It will only get worse.
The economy may improve buy Next November – but that is highly unlikely. The odds favor staying close to the same or worse.
Frankly there is a recession coming – it is likely the Fed can hold it off until after the election. But it is going to happen.
Argentina through out a socialist – Decisively. The netherlands has given the FVV a plurality that is likely large enough to form a government.
All of europe is slowly moving right.
Ukraine has turned into a mess, and Biden absolutely deserves the blame and likely will get much of it.
It is POSSIBLE that the war in Israel will be over and fade from memory before the 2024 election. Diminishing the current massive negative effect on Biden and democrats. It is also possible it continues.
Increasingly people are starting to grasp that the differences between the Trump and Biden presidencies are the consequence of policies.
That the border is a disaster – because of Biden’s policies – which he has started to back track on.
That even those who support open borders do not want the anarchy and chaos Biden has produced.
Biden told families to go home and ot fight over politics for Thanksgiving – and then published a handbook on fighting with your Republican relatives. And a very stupid one at that.
It is unlikely that a Trump presidency would have prevented afghanistan from collapsing.
But it did not have to be the mess it was, that is on Biden.
People are increasingly realizing that the war in Ukraine was avoidable. That it would not have happened under Trump.
That the War in Israel was avaidable – that it would not have happened under Trump.
That the border would not be a mess.
That the economy would not be a mess.
Trump is leading the polls in under 34 voters – because many of the pro-hamas young people – beleive that even though Trump stronly supports Israel, that there would have been no War if Trump was president.
You do not have to like someone to vote for them – if you beleive it means less people dying.
Life, the fundamental human right, without which no other rights exist.
While this is independent of whether Dobbs is a correct interpretation of the Constitution, looks like a terrible result: approximately 30000 more women were forced by a government to carry their pregnancies to term.
“30000 more women were forced by a government to carry their pregnancies to term.”
Yeah, IF you believe what looks like a fraudulent study when the summary claims a total ban on abortions resulted (just an inadvertent poor choice of wording?). And IF you want to believe there was no elective freedom of choice involved in these pregnancies that require at least two participants to end with a pregnancy.
Poor elective choices regarding freely chosen behavior often don’t have elective choices to escape the consequences of freely chosen personal decisions and behaviour.
Whether the medical results on your body from eating to the point of obesity, recreational drug use, smoking – or elective recreational sex where neither of the two (or more) involved chose to use contraceptives. Obesity, drugs, and smoking are at least enormous magnitudes more likely to cause lifelong personal harm and death as a result of those freely chosen elective choices of behavior. Not just six or less months of inconvenience during a pregnancy.
Soviet Democrat Apparatchiks always claim women were forced to have unprotected sex on those elective hot Tinder dates. Apparently they were also forced by the government to also spend all their money on booze and entertainment, rather than they and their partners spending some of it on contraceptives before jumping into bed and then demanding elective birth control abortions after things didn’t go as planned.
It’s terrible that governments (Republican, I’m sure the same Apparatchiks would claim) that already forced these women and men to have sex without contraceptives are now also forcing those women and their sperm donors to bear those children to term before surrendering them for adoption.
I wonder if the Soviet Democrats’ Apparatchiks would argue that the fathers in their half of those pregnancies would suddenly also have those “reproductive rights” they are currently denied as half of the pregnancy “reproductive rights” equation?
For the male in the Birthing Person pregnancy partnership to choose to keep the child that was not aborted, instead of having no say in whether there was an elective birth control abortion? And no choice in paying 18 years of child support if the female half of the pregnancy chose to keep the child instead.
Could they recognize and admit there might be a second half of those “reproductive rights”? After all, it isn’t women choosing artificial insemination that are the ones demanding elective birth control abortion “reproductive rights”. Takes two (or more) to have a pregnancy.
And 30,000+ babies escaped being shredded by their moms.
That’s an unwarranted inference
For 300,000 years of human existance, geting pregnant resulted in the birth of the child, a miscarraige, or the death of both the mother and child.
These results are FORCED by NATURE. It is only because of the rise in our standard of living that options like birther control or terminating a pregnancy even exist.
Regardless, no one was FORCED to do anything. They made choices. As with everything in life we rarely get the perfect set of choices that we want.
As a result of Dobbs many women had fewer means to get an abortion.
No one had NO options.
No force was involved, no one was unable to get an abortion if they wanted.
Officer Chauvin was stabbed while in federal prison and if he returns one can’t help but wonder if he will be attacked again, perhaps while the security cameras are broken and the guards are taking naps. Has the like happened before?
But the incident made me wonder, if all facts are unchanged save that Chauvin had been black and Floyd white would there have been riots? Surely not. Would black Chauvin have been crucified in the media? No. Would the FBI have ‘helped’ with the autopsy report? Unlikely. If charged would he have been convicted? No. If convicted would the appeals courts have turned away? No. Would the Supreme Court have taken the case? They would have leapt on it.
But Chauvin was white and Floyd black so the ranks of politicos and judges and justices have shown yellow. Color drives so much these days.
Chauvin may have been given a death sentence by proxy while our decaying, shattered, crime-infested cities where anarchy reigns triumphant wonder why so few competent men want to join the police. They should learn that not everyone is stupid.
NECK RESTRAINTS USED 237 TIMES WITH NO DEATHS
___________________________________________________________
“Minneapolis police rendered 44 people unconscious with neck restraints in five years”
Several police experts said that number appears to be unusually high. “By using this tactic, it’s a self-fulfilling tragedy,” said one.
Since the beginning of 2015, officers from the Minneapolis Police Department have rendered people unconscious with neck restraints 44 times, according to an NBC News analysis of police records. Several police experts said that number appears to be unusually high.
Minneapolis police used neck restraints at least 237 times during that span, and in 16 percent of the incidents the suspects and other individuals lost consciousness, the department’s use-of-force records show. A lack of publicly available use-of-force data from other departments makes it difficult to compare Minneapolis to other cities of the same or any size.
Police define neck restraints as when an officer uses an arm or leg to compress someone’s neck without directly pressuring the airway.
– NBC, June 1, 2020
Officer Derek Chauvin was a victim of “woke” mass hysteria and racism for doing his duty and restraining a suspect with sufficient probable cause.
No prior suspect subjected to neck restraints died, which makes it clear that the problem WAS the suspect, a self-destructive, self-abusive, drug addict and repeat criminal offender.
Yes, that plus the autopsy didn’t not show that anything Chauvin did caused Floyd’s death.
Floyd was the only person in the country with Covid that Fauci didn’t declare died of Covid.
Probably easier to show that Fauci was responsible for deaths than that Chauvin was.
New York lost 2,500 cops just this year. As I said, not everyone is stupid. When you can’t trust the society you are hired to protect, get a different job.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/11/25/cops-nypd-quit-job-nyc
I am personally at odds with Dobbs, as well as the raft of state constitution abortion amendments.
While Dobbs is correct – there is no right to an abortion.
There is however a right to control of your own body.
That is a right that unfortunately the Supreme court has NOT recognized – Buck V Bell is still good law, and was cited in Covid cases recently.
If states wich to amend their constitution – they should do so properly – rather than foducing on abortion which is not a right.
They could amend their state constitutions properly
“the right of a person to control over their own body shall not be infringed”
Seems to pass muster as a constitutional amendment to me.
That would allow the removal of a fetus throughout pregnancy, but it would NOT grant a right to ensure the death fo the fetus – though that would be certain through the first half of pregnancy today.
More importantly it would bar states from requiring masks, or forced vaccinations,
it would also allow people to kill themselves. If that is what they wanted.
Arguably it would allow drug use.
Constitutional rights are not absolute – so a right to control of your own body would still allow government some ability to infringe at the edges.
We could still lock up people who commit crimes.
No presentation of rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights says that it “would still allow government some ability to infringe at the edges.”
Those are your words – the Constitution does not contain those words – anything close to that rendition is arbitrary, false, and partial “interpretation.”
If the Founders and Framers had wanted it, their Constitution would have simply said, “Do whatever you like,” and it did not do any such thing.
Constitutional rights and freedoms are absolute or they don’t exist; once one starts qualifying rights, one is not required to stop and may make rights disappear altogether.
The only qualified right is the right to private property, which is qualified by a requirement for “just compensation” for public use and taking.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION”
THE 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY WAS INITIALLY QUALIFIED BY THE FRAMERS AND IS, THEREFORE, ABSOLUTE, ALLOWING NO FURTHER QUALIFICATION.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
ABORTION IS HOMICIDE (I.E. MAN KILL) OF A SEPARATE PERSON
If a woman may kill her embryo, fetus, or baby, a foster parent, jailer or prison guard may kill his “protected person” or “charge.”
Everyone has a right to control their own body, even people who are still inside the womb; the fact that embryos, fetuses, and babies continue to develop and grow demonstrates their strong desire to live, to continue, and to persist.
An embryo, fetus, or baby in a womb is an entirely separate and different person and individual human being, not unlike an adopted child, foster child, or convict in prison who is IN THE CUSTODY OF ANOTHER.
That some people fail to respect and protect those who need or require protection, does not change their “natural” and “legal” protected status and their natural and legal right to said protection.
Human beings have a natural requirement to protect and sustain embryos, fetuses, and babies.
If you don’t know that, you and all like you are beyond cognizance, coherence, and help.
George,
Do you have the free speech right to produce and distribute child porn ?
Do you have the free speech right to tell someone to murder another ?
Left wig nuts here have attacked Turley over his claim to be a free speech absolutist.
Do you beleive that the constitution bars laws criminalizing child porn ?
If you do not, you have lost the debate.
If you accept that child porn can be criminalized, then you have accepted that government does have some power to infringe on rights at the edge.
Absolutely we want the minimum of infringement we want the brightest possible lines with the largest possible domain for the right protected.
Ah, the classic and extreme “exception to the rule.”
Yes! Emphatically!
You are deliberate or oblivious in equivocating on the subject of the freedom of the press, understanding that child abuse in all forms is offensive, egregious, and criminal.
Freedom of the press does not include criminally abusing children; a publisher absolutely abuses children to generate child porn.
You deliberately commingled freedom of speech and press as a ruse.
And yes, a person enjoys the full freedom of speech which may be actionable civilly and criminally.
De facto and in the hypothetical, a person is always wise to choose his words.
I actually don’t believe we disagree.
We may be saying the same thing using different words.
I don’t see any contradiction or detraction from the Constitution in criminalizing specific and particular publications which engage in criminal activity.
“I am personally at odds with Dobbs”
I personally think that anyone who claims the Constitution allows federal governments and unelected judges to decide whether or not one half of a pregnancy – and only the female half – can be given a federal permission for the elective aborting an unborn child, granted by federal politicians and judges, isn’t very Constitutional in their thinking.
In part because I think those same people would squeal like stuck pigs if the exact same rational allowed a different set of federal politicians and unelected judges to decide the opposite: that ALL those elective birth control abortions are illegal. Same argument: “Can’t control your own body, yada, yada, yada..”
Constitutionally, can’t have it both ways unless you also agree that elective birth control abortions can either be given a federal permission or be slapped with a federal ban, depending on the government of the day.
Dobbs said this was a matter for the individual states and their voters. Not something to be found in emanations and penumbras vaguely emitting from the Constitution that four long dead SCOTUS justices claim to have had seen in a revelation. Like SCOTUS said in Dobbs, and like Bader-Ginsberg said would inevitably happen with the horribly inept and unconstitutional Roe and Casey decisions, I also have seen no credible argument that emanations and penumbras exist that make elective birth control abortions a Constitutional right.
Control of your body starts long before you jump into bed with the other half of that pregnancy with that hot Tinder date. And those “reproductive rights” that only apply to one half of the population and one half of every pregnancy; what other Constitutional right is denied to only one of the two sexes?
And alternately (of course) if the woman exercising her “reproductive righrts”decides the child isn’t inconvenient, and she wants the father (more likely the government) to pay for the support and raising of that child. In those cases, the father still doesn’t have “reproductive rights” – whether to ask for one of those elective birth control abortions instead, or to be free of any liability requiring him to pay for the support for the child when HE doesn’t want that child but the mother does.
Nothing that discriminatory and bigoted about any Constitutional right would ever be seriously considered for anything else in the Constitution.
And it ain’t “your body” when that unborn child has different fingerprints, a different heartbeat, different brain waves – and it’s own unique individual DNA different from yours.
Lots of elective poor personal choices and decisions don’t have elective escape clauses to go with them. Nor have excuses like “you’re just saying that because you must be religious” work for excusing them.
Whether using drugs while in a workplace that has drug testing, the medical consequences of eating to the point of morbid obesity, or the medical consequences of you and your chosen bed partner choosing to spend all your money on booze and entertainment during that hot Tinder date rather than spending some of it on purchasing contraceptives (if you can’t get them for free anyways). If you can’t get them for free, Amazon will sell you and your partners condoms that each cost a fraction of the cost of a cup of coffee, much less a drink in the bar. They’ll fit in there right beside your credit card, drivers’ license, etc – they certainly did when I left high school.
Might have to spend an inconvenient consequence of seven or so months pregnant before abandoning that child to adoption due to your poor personal choices. Your partner in the other half of that pregnancy will probably – and should – have an equally inconvenient time as well during those months supporting the pregnancy you’re equally responsible for. On the other hand, at the very least he would have the “reproductive rights” to decide whether or not he wanted to adopt that child after it was born instead of no say if the woman decided to have it butchered.
I would even say that a father making that choice wouldn’t result in the other half of the pregnancy being burdened with paying for child support while the child was growing up – unlike the father being forced into that unwanted burden if the mother opts to keep the child of their pregnancy.
Stare decisis and consistency: constitutional law and government requires it.
We live in the nation called Gynocentria, and it is ridiculous.
I’m certain many are well pleased that male heirs (any heirs) can be culled away from all men in the USA.
Old Airborne Dog;
While we are barred from deliberately killing another persone – except for in defense of self or others.
We are not obligated to provide life and sustenance to another.
If you will die if I do not give you my kidney – I am free to say no.
The possible death of someone else does not EVER obligate us to give of ourselves to prevent their death.
Each of us has the RIGHT do DENY the parasitic use of our body to someone else.
Even a born and fully living person.
What we do not have is the right to kill the other person.
There is a right to control of our own bodies – and that right should be more absolute than the enumerated rights in the bill of rights.
That right means that we can not be forced to be vaccinated.
We can not be forcibly sterilized.
We can not be forced to donate our organs
And it means we can not be forced to remain pregnant.
The right to be “not pregnant” – does not allows us to FORCE others to end our pregnancy,
It does not allow us to REQUIRE the death of the fetus.
But it does allow us to choose to have the fetus removed from our body – even if that will result in its death.
Because the right is to control our bodies NOT a right to an abortion,
that means the state CAN step in and require that the removal of the pregnancy be done such that life is preserved – if that is possible without an increase in risk to the life of the woman.
This is the decision the supreme court should have made long ago.
I would note this is actually consistent with centuries of common law.
A person can not be legally obligated to do (or not do) something with respect to their own body.
That does not mean that a choice that is legal, is also moral.
I would hope that you would donate a kidney to save someone else’s life if that was necescary.
That would be the moral thing to do.
That does not alter that the law, does not and can not require that.
If you wish to argue that bring about the likely death of a fetus is immoral – I am not debating that with you.
The issue is what is constitutional, what our actual rights are.
Even if you accept that a fetus is a fully human life entitled to all the rights of born humans.
Even if you beleive that people are morally obligated to protect and preserve that life.
You can not constitutionally force a person to give the use of their body to sustain the life of another person.
The federal government will never legislate the legalization of abortion.
The power to legalize abortion is reserved to the States.
After seeing millions of uneducated, disease ridden, fentanyl toting, thugs and terrorists illegally entering our homeland, I prefer taking the 32,000 American babies.
Are you in look of a high-paying farther work that provides adaptability and quick accessibility? yj See no encourage! We have compiled a list of online employments that are right now enlisting and prepared to offer you a fulfilling career from the consolation of your claim home.
see here….. https://jobshiringownhome12.blogspot.com
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY
TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY
The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral.” More Americans die than are born. Soon, there will be no Americans left in America. The 19th Amendment “fundamentally transformed” America into a “dead-man-walking,” third world, banana republic. Women make Americans, or not. The 19th Amendment gave America a death sentence. The 19th Amendment allowed Obama and the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) to replace the births of actual Americans with “fake” asylum-seeking, illegal alien, deleterious and unassimilable foreign invaders. Biden has rammed 4 million illegal aliens through in three years. The goal of the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) is to destroy America, turn America into chaos, and replace their chaos with communism. They’re just about done.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
– Preamble, Constitution of the United States of America
I strongly support the right of women to vote under the 19th amendment and disagree with the notion that the amendment is a death sentence for America or that it’s inconsistent with the preamble.
That will constitute your eulogy for America:
“Long live the death-by-19th-unAmendment of America.”
– Sissy
________
You’re a great American, comradette, sissy.
While I am a strong pro-life advocate, the sorry truth about many of these babies born after Dodd is that many were not really wanted and were the result of careless birth control or total lack of self-control. While each life is precious, much of our society does not respect the creation of functioning families that nurture children. I hate to think of how many of these babies will endure a life of apathy from these mothers who are without benefit of husband/father figures. The problem of abortion; and its rabid desire/necessity by so many rudderless young people who rarely think beyond the next personal gratification, will not be solved until we can recreate a culture that has a strong moral core and an agreed upon common understanding of what that culture entails. The introduction of the concept of multiculturalism and the idea that individual self-fulfillment overrides any commitment to community is tearing this nation asunder. I am watching our cultural disintegration with an eye to the same process dissolving the Roman Empire – when Rome expanded beyond its ability to maintain the core of the old Roman Republic and adopted a multicultural nature to its empire, it swiftly disintegrated because there was no sense of commitment to that old culture in the hearts and minds of the various groups newly conquered and appropriated by that empire. It literally poisoned itself from within.
I wasn’t wanted by my own mother, however at 67 years of age, raising a family of high achieving children and being able to help and donate money to those in need around the world, I’m suspicious of those who “predict” the future for the unwanted, unborn.
It’s not a matter of prediction, but of statistics. You were lucky but the baby just recently found dead in a trash can was not. While I am pro-life, I also know what the statistics tell me about what young, foolish unprepared girls will do. Even if they give birth to a child, have you noticed the quality of many children raised in our welfare regimes? Abortion/not abortion is not the question. What I stated is that as a culture we are failing because the family unite is under siege and abortion is only a small part of it. I am glad that you survived a situation in good stead, many do not. I am torn between thinking of the wanton death of babies by women who see them only as clumps of cells that they own and the other scenario of abused/killed babies and children born to women who are not willing to or ready to be a parent. Which is worse? The answer does not lie in abortion legislation but in the creation of a culture that nourishes children and families on the whole and we cannot have that while we are being held hostage by a culture that is narcissistic, woke and self-relevant only.
I also know what the statistics tell me about what young, foolish unprepared girls will do. Even if they give birth to a child, have you noticed the quality of many children raised in our welfare regimes?
Yes, we get it. We must kill the baby . . . to save the baby from? Being poor and never experience a Caribbean cruise.
I agree about the actual outcomes of our welfare regimes. But the answer is not aborting babies. The answer is aborting the welfare regimes.
Try to square that with the fact that the poorest nations on earth have the highest reproduction rate.
Prior to the modern era people had large numbers of kids – as labor for their farms and because you needed to have large numbers to see enough reach adulthood.
Prior to Rowe we had large numbers of children born that were not the intentional choices of two parents.
My point is that things work out anyway.
The “unwanted child” trope is mostly a myth.
Humans are naturally inclind to want and care for their offspring – intended or not.
We do not each do an equally good job as parents. But the proportion of parents that truly do not want their kids once they have them is small.
A lot of intersectional strawman arguments interfacing with one way stereotypes here interspaced with simple facts. That muddies the waters.
“I hate to think of how many of these babies will endure a life of apathy from these mothers who are without benefit of husband/father figures.”
As Dr. Thomas Sowell would say: as compared to what? What percentage greater than the children born into a marriage/”partnership” that will also endure a life of apathy and abuse from one or both of those parents in a government recognized marriage? One is perfect, the other not so much? One is pretty bad, while the other is twice as worse?
“problem of abortion; and its rabid desire/necessity by so many rudderless young people who rarely think beyond the next personal gratification”
It’s just kids these days, huh? Planned Parenthood’s Guttenmacher Institute claims that the same percentage of women after the age of 40 have elective birth control abortions as females younger than 20. About 55% of abortions were for women in their 20’s, while about 35% were women in their 30’s.
Meanwhile, ‘female persons of color’ were eight times more likely to have elective birth control abortions than female whites. Maybe that shows that ‘women of color’ are rudderless, never think beyond their next personal gratification, thus view abortion as a rabid desire/necessity to continue their rudderless ways?
Meanwhile, at the same time regardless of age, 42% of women having abortions had already had at least one abortion. For 18% it was their third elective birth control abortion – or more. And a quarter of women who had abortions had one previous live birth, 20% had two previous live births, 10% had three, and 6% had four or more previous live births.
A little more complex than just blaming it on “rudderless young people” only thinking about personal gratification. Which might be why we see the Soviet Democrats these days almost celebrating elective birth control abortions as a rite of tribal membership.
We have listened over the decades to pro-abortion advocates as they prophesied what the “sure” outcome of “unwanted” children would be – increased crime, poverty, etc. However we never heard them say that perhaps one of the aborted, if allowed to live, might have solved the climate crisis, cured cancer, produced Middle East peace, etc. What humanity has lost from destroying the 63,000,000+ human lives in just the US since 1973 is incalculable.
Anonymous – a refreshing perspective to be sure! I will add that infants who are born, even though abortion might have been an option for the mother, are deserving of life even if their achievements are not as stellar as those that you describe. I was born before abortion was legal in my state and was immediately relinquished for the possibility of adoption. I was not chosen for adoption until I was three months old. I have always been grateful that my birth mother gave me life and that my adoptive parents gave me the opportunities that I have had. I recognize that abortions occurred even though they were not legal when I was born. My personal experience has shaped the contours of my perspective on abortion. While I recognize that , in some instances, an unwanted pregnancy is the result of a criminal act, that is usually not the case. I simply cannot relate to those who chant: “My body, my choice” because in most instances a choice has been made. I think that, in many instances, a selfish decision is preceded by a reckless decision. I wish that more people actually had a reverence for life.
Exactly, life is the fundamental human right, without which no other rights exist.
Happy to hear your story. My father didn’t want my younger brother, and THANK GOD it was before abortion was legal, because I don’t know WHAT I would do without him. My father left the family. He didn’t deserve us.