Considering he said he would not be enforcing the abortion ban on IVF, this is almost certainly a far right terrorist.
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
67 points (97.2% liked)
News
36618 readers
3324 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I wouldn't trust it. He could easily change his mind, or the next AG could have differing opinions. You'll only be 'safe' after the statute of limitations ends, and the statute of limitations for murder is infinite.
Don't get me wrong, I don't trust him for shit. But considering his announcement was not long ago, this likely is not coming from anyone on the left.
Actually that's not true, there's a legal standard applied to public statements regarding enforcement from prosecutors and other related members of executive branches.
Ah yes, the legally binding pinky-promise.
Or a car backfired. Lol
Are there any oak trees in the area?
Apparently so, but they can't be mad at the attorney general for the acorns. He's anti-acorn as much as they are.
The attorney general that says they will not enforce the IVF thing?
Hmm, a clue.
Maybe for now.
Correct! Roe vs Wade was settled law for 50years and oops it's not.
Y'all got no one but yourselves to investigate. May I suggest you start with the names of the people who have directly said they would be doing this in direct communication with your office? Odds are hilariously high that they've filmed themselves doing it and posted it to the facepals.
I'm not a fan of stochastic terrorism, but feel that finally one was directed towards something useful.
Edit: NM, seems it was a right-winger angry that the AG won't enforce the IVF ban.
MAGAts, innit.
This kind of thing becomes common when a government consistently acts against the will of the majority of the population.
EDIT: Don't mistake my words for the support of violence. I am simply saying it is inevitable when the public is consistently ignored.
You have this backwards. This is very likely a minority (MAGA) outraged that their minority view (no IVF) will not be enforced. They are bombing the attorney general that said he will not enforce it.
The majority voted for the people who wanted to keep abortion legal.
This is the act of someone who knows they can't win at the ballot box.
Exactly. When all peaceful means of democratic governance are ignored, violence becomes inevitable.
Id love to see your list of "all peaceful means". I'm willing to bet it's very short.
I'm not sure you are properly attributing the motive in this case. Either that or I'm misunderstanding your point, which is possible.
My guess is angry magas.
I think it's far more likely that whoever did this was upset about embryos being ruled to be people. I doubt they had heard what the AG said and if they did I doubt they believed it.
Yeah but I don't think the AG's office had anything to do with the ruling as it was a civil wrongful death case between private parties, so it makes no sense to bomb AG's office.
The far right is not the majority of the population.
It's generally the other way around, where an individual with an opposing extreme view has to be louder than usual due to being silenced by numbers.
In this case the minority is in control and ignoring the majority.
If you have the numbers, you protest as a show of force. If you don't, you terrorize as a show of force.
If you have the numbers of people with the money and time to protest, yes. Though that hasn’t done much to sway the Supreme Court.