Wait? Did we get a new word from Biden?!
edit: Found it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upn0xT--zOg
Gotta 3D printer or know someone who does?
If it were up to me only straight non-divorced couples would be allowed to adopt, or maybe people who already have their own biological children but whose spouse had passed away.
That'd be my ideal anyway.
I would want the kids to have the most stable home they could get.
Single female with no kids? No. She shouldn't be able to adopt either.
I would love to be able to adopt, but alas. I don't think the government would let a single dude adopt (which is probably a good thing in general).
Next best thing I can do is donate to Sacred Selections charity. They help Christian couples cover the costs of adopting.
This is a Carpe Donktum special. Looks like the Trump team snagged it haha.
edit: Carpe Donktum original - https://youtu.be/KP5K-wnnbq0
It at least should go back to the states because it's not a power given to the federal government to regulate it.
If it's argued along the lines of pre-born infants being humans and thus being entitled to the same rights that adults enjoy, then I don't see how a ruling against it couldn't be applied nationally.
Really depends on how it's argued I guess.
I was just watching that haha!
I'm very much against Ballot 1 (Marsy's Law).
- for victim's families to be notified about proceedings;
- to be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, or sentencing of the accused;
- to proceedings free from unreasonable delays; to be present at trials
These three things are necessarily at odds with each other.
At first, none of this sounds objectionable. However, consider the following results. First, if you have enough money to pay a lawyer to assert your rights as a victim then he or she, in addition to the prosecutor and defense lawyer, will have the right to be present and litigate whether the bond amount for a criminal defendant is appropriate, what conditions should be imposed on release, when trial should be set, or whether a plea agreement should be approved. This increases the number of lawyers present in every one of these proceedings by 50%. That is not typically a recipe for a timelier resolution of a case.
Most of the rest of this is already covered through statute. And, as it was written at the time of the above article, corporations could be considered a "victim" and have their defense paid for for free even though they could afford it otherwise.
Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying we don't need a poorly thought constitutional amendment that upends our current legal system.
edit: previous comment
I think some use After Effects, some use Paint.
Use whatever you can but may your memes be great.