Schadrach

Or they owned a farm, and 7 or 8 of those kids are already doing significant amounts of farm labor to earn their food. The economics of having tons of kids is radically different when they go from being a cost to a profit in 8ish years instead of from a cost to not a budget item in hopefully 22 if you’re lucky.

The US school calendar was based on the realities of this. So was the election schedule, voting on a Tuesday aligns neatly with the schedules of farmers bringing goods to the nearest town for market.

deleted by creator

The folks who have large numbers of kids typically start handing off childcare duties to the older ones as soon as they’re physically capable of doing those tasks. Especially the girls - usually these sorts of families don’t want boys doing child care unless there are no girls, but the boys start getting used for labor around the same age.

tell that to any woman in the use asking to be sterilized, crazy the hoops you have to jump through

That’s entirely about finding the right doctor. I’ve known men who were refused a vasectomy because “you’ll want kids later and it isn’t always reversible” and were asked to get a consent form signed by their wife. Both are things that are common “hoops” women go through when trying to get a conservative doctor to do a hysterectomy or tubal ligation.

My wife actually brought me with her to the doctor’s appointment where she asked for her hysterectomy “just in case” and the doctor asked why she brought me with her and I kind of sheepishly answered “moral support.” She had seen every other gyno in the area and had problems with all of them, ranging from ignoring her issues to doing a uterine biopsy using a kevorkian punch (look it up, it’s designed to be inserted, and then essentially a metal claw on the business end gouges out a piece of tissue to sample) with no pain relief of any kind on the grounds that “it’s less painful than childbirth”. Most of them were women (including the one that did the uterine biopsy), the one who did her hysterectomy was one of the only men.

No, it is not, and it’s revolting to me that you’d think that. More than 3000 suits were filed in 1 year under the Adult Survivors Act, are all those “happy little accidents”, or do those people mean nothing and you only care about that one case?

Do you think the same identical law would have been passed if Carroll had never accused Trump? Lots of other people benefited, that is to be sure, but the specifics of when the law was passed and exactly what it did were entirely about creating a legal ability for Carroll to sue Trump that could reasonably be resolved before the election.

For example, the ASA discards statutes of limitations entirely for the window, rather than applying the new limit to old cases, because if it had only allowed applying the 20 year limit to old cases then Carroll’s case would have been outside the scope even when she first made the accusation publicly. Out of the 3000 cases, I wonder how many involved conduct that happened prior to 2002?

This was not retroactive, however, so the ASA was passed to allow alleged victims to bring up their cases.

It wasn’t retroactive because several state courts have found that changing a statute of limitations retroactively to apply to cases that were already outside the previous statute of limitations is an unconstitutional ex post facto law. If the statute of limitations is 3 years and you change it to 20, it cannot apply to any case already more than three years old without opening yourself up to another suit like Stogner v. California. The notion is pretty basic - you generally can’t create a law that puts someone in jeopardy who was not already potentially in jeopardy for that conduct.

This is why the ASA is a separate law and why it only opened a temporary and narrow window for such cases. Such “revival” laws tend to do better in state supreme courts than a full retroactive extension of statutes of limitations.

He actually offered to do so, but it was as a part of his single most common legal tactic - delaying. Basically he waited until it was functionally too late, then offered a sample if and only if the pages of the DNA report from the dress that had been held from his lawyers were provided in exchange. The judge refused to let this happen, because it would be opening a new line of inquiry set to make the case take even longer (which was the point).

Had the judge allowed Trump to submit the sample, and had he been allowed to continue to drag every step of that process out to the last minute (which is his standard MO in legal disputes) the election would have happened before the case was resolved and much like him being sentenced to “never mind, we good bro” for his 34 felony convictions this would have been derailed and dismissed, or SCOTUS would have rendered it invalid because our current SCOTUS serves Heritage first, Trump second, and the law in a distant third.

Determined by a preponderance of the evidence (this standard is essentially slightly more likely than not as opposed to the stronger standards of clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt) to be civilly liable for sexual abuse (he was found not liable for rape because while the jury believed it had been proved more likely than not she was penetrated by him they didn’t believe it had been proved more likely than not that he used his penis to do so) for which he owes her damages, and then further damages for suing her for defamation for calling him a rapist (the judge there ruled that while he had not been found civilly liable for rape in the trial that the conduct he was found liable for met the colloquial definition of rape if not the NY penal code definition of such).

It’s sort of like how OJ Simpson was never found guilty of murder, but he was found civilly liable for wrongful death for the same killings.

I don’t think anyone doubts it happened,

You might want to look at right wing social media - there’s a whole lot of claims that it didn’t and that she based her story on Law and Order SVU S13 E11 from 2012. Given the circles she traveled in, it’s at least as likely that the SVU episode was inspired by her telling someone connected to the writers the story.

but a criminal trial can be gruelling and ultimately lead to nothing.

Also, odds are that it’s past statute of limitations, and those exist in large part because memories fade and evidence doesn’t last forever making crimes both more difficult to prove and more difficult to defend against over time.

Her civil case would have already been past statute of limitations, but NY passed a law that created a temporary window where the statute of limitations for civil suits for sexual assault was retroactively revoked. It’s pretty obvious that the goal was specifically to allow Carroll to sue Trump, but it’s written a more broadly than that essentially as plausible deniability. I was actually surprised that NY law didn’t get stopped under the same grounds that retroactively expanding the statute of limitations has been shot down in the past - usually the line the courts will follow is that if you expand a statute of limitations, the new limit only applies to conduct that happens after the change occurs.

I was going to say as much. WV flipped hard in 2000. But it’s simple to understand - WV has always been pretty socially conservative, but was Dem because of the unions. They flipped because the Dems decided to turn on the biggest union industries in the state. The coal miner’s union isn’t a good base for your power when you’re overtly talking about actively working to destroy the coal mining industry. To be clear about how much WV cares about coal, it’s the state rock and there’s a coal miner on the state seal. The libertarian bent of a lot of GOP doesn’t hurt either, Montani Semper Liberi and all.