The lone woman on Tennessee’s death row was still alive after she was administered two lethal injections, her lawyer said in a motion seeking to halt her execution Wednesday night, a stunning development after the Supreme Court had stepped in to allow the state to put her to death.
At 8:26 p.m. local time, witnesses said “executioners had injected both syringes of lethal injection chemicals” and Christa Pike was “still alive and snoring,” her lawyers said in a federal court filing.
They said Pike “has not lost consciousness and still has a heartbeat” and that curtains to the death chamber “have gone down twice.”
it's always easy to speak for something that isn't born yet
nothing but cruel and unusual punishment
System is working as designed.
conservative voters are obsessed with executions, they love it.
Every single thing about her case from the time of her arrest until now has been a complete fustercluck, it's no surprise the execution didn't work.
She literally told them, her lawyers literally told them, that she has a medical condition that will prevent the lethal injection drugs from working, but they're so hell bent on murdering her that they could not just let her spend her life in prison. Yes, she brutally killed that girl, but the other two people who also brutally murdered that girl got life in prison for one, AND PAROLE for the other.
I'm not suggesting she's innocent. She's not. But why does every court have such a hard on for killing the woman? Abolish the death penalty, and do not give the state the right to kill it's citizens. Please.
why does every court have such a hard on for killing the woman
Because every hillbilly chucklehead in the state has a hard on for the death penalty.
JFC.
That's fair. But it's not just the Tennessee courts. She's taken her case to the US supreme court multiple times.
And yeah, Tennessee can be conservative as fuck, and the education system leaves almost everything to be desired, but I lived there, 30 minutes from Knoxville, for 15 years. Most people are pretty against the death penalty anymore, at least most everyone I spoke to about it. And considering I did political organizing, I spoke to a lot of people of differing opinions. It's actually one of the hooks we used to use when trying to convince people about more progressive or lefty policies. Start with the death penalty, as it's normally the easiest way to get someone to the point of agreeing that they don't always align with their political party or candidate
People are often in favor of the theoretical death of evil humans, but the bureaucracy of administering the death penalty is too ridiculous and impractical.
On some issues the opinions of citizens are important, but in others I think citizens generally aren't equipped to make a decision.
Another example might be taxes, or how much tax ought to be paid. Loads of people might vote to say they shouldn't have to pay taxes, but very obviously they're wrong.
American's in particular seem ill equipped to separate the fact that someone may well "deserve" to die from the notion that delivering that death is not the best outcome for anyone.
Wow things have changed or are different there. I remember the death penalty being pretty dang popular when I was younger
It's still popular, until you start talking to them about it, or individual cases. People are generally "in favor" until they actually think about it for too long
CONSERVATIVES fatansize about executions all the time, thats why. executions are red states way of placating the rabid voters.
it's strongman politics. once a jury has condemned a prisoner to death, the whole dynamic surrounding their case shifts. no longer are they a person whose life carries value, even if that value is complicated by their actions. they become a shibboleth upon which every strongman politician must prove that they are not soft on crime. none of these appeals have taken into consideration the real facts of the case or the woman, but have been treated as an opportunity to prove to authoritarian supporters that this lawyer, this judge, this executive, whoever is able to step in, but doesn't, to set things right is a big strong man that you should worship as a big strong man, and that they perform the role of big authoritarian daddy with aplomb.
She also had serious MH issues at the time. Was she given adequate psych assessment before sentence? Was it fully taken into account in sentence or the decision to go ahead with execution?
Apparently not.
She has a condition that causes blood clotting, some kind of thrombosis. Her lawyers told the courts that it could cause the injections to fail.
Other commenter is also correct. She was raped multiple times, and asked for a hanging instead of an injection because 1, she believes a botched hanging would be less awful a way to die than a botched lethal injection, and 2, because being strapped to a gurney (effectively tied to a bed) and surrounded by men and watched by strangers would be incredibly psychologically painful to her. The woman declined a last meal before they did this, id imagine she was too distraught to eat.
Everything I have read says that she wanted another method of execution because strapping her to a guerney will trigger a PTSD episode.
That, yes. But also she has a blood clotting condition that her and her lawyers believed would make the injections fail to work correctly.
And we can see that's what happened. Whether it's because of the blood clots or not, I can't say. But it sounds like they were spot on.
But why does every court have such a hard on for killing the woman?
Literally most deaths by execution in the US are suffered by males (1665), not by females (18). Just fucking stop that "women always suffer more than men" bullshit, because it's not true.
Abolish the death penalty, and do not give the state the right to kill it's citizens. Please.
I'm with you here, however.
At no point did I say more women were murdered by the death penalty. I rhetorically inquired why the courts have such a hard on for killing this singular individual woman
Gonna just leave that there, because I genuine don't want to get into why you were so quick to jump to the phrasing you used, or make assumptions about you based on that.
Jesus fucking Christ this is a country of sociopaths.
I'm against the death penalty because I think it debases our society, but I wouldn't say we're sociopaths. Have you read up on what this woman did? She tortured a girl for hours, bashed her skull in with a rock, then carried a piece of the skull in her pocket, showed it to friends and bragged about the murder.
If she was a billionaire who opened up a datacenter, you all would be yelling "Botch it again!"
She tortured a girl for hours, bashed her skull in with a rock, then carried a piece of the skull in her pocket, showed it to friends and bragged about the murder
Seems sociopathic.
I also think this weird "tit for tat" obsession with what amounts to a medieval concept of justice is also sociopathic. That because someone has killed, that some how killing them undoes the initial injustice, well, its sociopathic. There is also ample evidence that it doesn't accomplish any of is purported goals. A society, the response to a killing is to create more killing?
Seems sociopathic.
"Killing people is wrong, so we're going to kill you."
Its a fundamentally reactionary tautology. Laws serves to protect but does not bind. Because I'm the one engaging in the behavior I have a problem with others doing, its fine.
I totally agree with you on everything except for characterizing human desire for revenge and justice as sociopathy. Sure, it's barbaric and beneath a civilized society, but they're not the same.
I don't know what else to call it then, when a society collectively engages in a behavior we would individually characterize as sociopathic. And sure, there are degrees to these things, but the woman isn't roaming the streets continuing to kill. She's already behind bars and has been for decades. If you believe such a thing as justice exists, it was served long, long ago. Whatever this society is engaging in, its not justice, and its closer to what the accused did that it is to whatever could undo what the accused did.
Hell naw, what doesn't work is the "let's give him a free five-stars hotel with everything included". Just basic psychology: if you teach them that what they'll get if they behave bad is always better than what they did, they'll do it again because the costs-benefits calc is always good for them.
This country is an extremely dangerous combination of cruel and stupid.
The cruelty is the point.
It this point, IMO, they've shot their wad and should take her to the hospital and if she eventually survives all this then stop trying to kill her period and either re-incarcerate her for some period (even life) or let her go. Having the state try to kill her, twice, and fuck up the whole thing, twice, seems like ample punishment to me. Yee haw!
It's an absurdity, but if you're going to execute people as humanely as possibly then yeah - if they're still alive after the attempt you have to provide assistance. What's the alternative?
I grew up on a farm and my dad would have to slaughter the chickens we raised to feed the family. Despite trying to make their end as quick and painless as possible, the "chicken running around with its head cut off" was an actual thing sometimes. There's even a famous extremely rare occurrence of a chicken surviving its own beheading: Mike the Headless Chicken. Of course that chicken was monetized because Capitalism, but the point remains: if you have to take a life for whatever reason, there's no going back.
Trying to execute people as humanely as possible is a noble intention, but you need to have a backup plan in case the drugs fail. Just like Mike, trying to rescue her and keep her technically alive after the botched execution attempt is cruelty, plain and simple. It's also preventable, and completely unnecessary...
I think the backup plan was more drugs, which they administered.
I'm not quite sure what backup plan you might be thinking of? Beheading? Strangulation? Shooting?
The mind boggles.
Whatever the plan is, there has to be a point at which the executioners acknowledge that the plan has failed, and after that point the prisoner needs to be made as comfortable as possible.
A headless chicken is not analogous to a person who's had an intramuscular injection of whatever cocktail.
Not that it wasn't already grisly and fucked. But didnt she ask specifically to be shot? If this doesnt prove that theres no truly humane way then nothing really will. Kind of feel like she was trying to avoid all of this in some way.
I agree wholeheartedly that executing people is barbaric.
My question is, if you're going to do it, then what do you do if it doesn't work,?
You'd think there'd be a sort of double-jeopardy thing in relation to lethal injections.
Something like the old Western movie trope of how you can't be hanged twice.
Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the landmark majority opinion regarding lethal injection in the 2019 case Bucklew v. Precythe
In a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines, Gorsuch ruled that the Eighth Amendment—which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment—"does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death"
The ruling affirmed that under Supreme Court precedent, an inmate challenging a state's method of execution—even under unique, personal medical circumstances—must prove that a feasible, readily available alternative exists that would significantly reduce severe pain. Gorsuch ruled that Bucklew failed to provide the operational details necessary to show that nitrogen gas was a viable, easily implemented alternative for the state
Gorsuch also used the opinion to criticize what he viewed as legal gamesmanship, pointing out that Bucklew had managed to delay his execution for more than two decades through continuous legal appeals.
The new modus operandi of The United States, it seems.
She was convicted of torturing a teenage girl to death.
Cruel and unusual punishment is flatly unethical, no debating it.
Just a reminder that Tennessee has botched so much of this case for decades. There's no doubt that this woman is guilty, but for fuck's sake, look at this from Wikipedia:
Slemmer's mother repeatedly asked Tennessee authorities to return the fragment of skull for proper burial, but it remained in the state's possession as evidence. Authorities stated it would not be returned while the case remained open, awaiting Pike's execution. In a documentary that premiered September 2026 ahead of Pike's potential execution, Dead Woman Walking: Pike vs. Tennessee, Slemmer's mother, May Martinez, confirmed that after 16 years of fighting and writing letters, she had received the skull from the state of Tennessee but has still not received "the last piece of her daughter’s skull."
Yeah, that's right, the State of Tennessee still has a piece of the victim's skull and refuses to give it back to the family. The people who tell you that this was satanic are keeping a piece of the victim's body as a trophy. Sounds like they would know...
I mean is it really more humane than a guillotine or are we just doing lethal injections to make those witnessing it feel more comfortable?
As long as it's built properly a guillotine is pretty effective the first go around.
Yeah the audience wants to not be confronted with their bloodlust. They want it clean and painless, just a quick "no more bad guy" rather than the viceral reality we're primed to experience when a life is ended
It's easier to argue in court since tha paralytic part of the three injections hides any possible reactions. That's why they've had recent trouble doing lethal injections; the reactions start to show and give away the game when you don't paralyze fully.
It's also interesting there have been problems with nitrogen as well. It tells me they haven't set it up so they purge co2 properly. Likely deliberately.
i assume the agonizing part for nitrogen is gasping for air, is not like going to sleep and never waking up. so its not really humane
Biologically we detect co2 not o2. The agonizing part of nitrogen is that they don't want to die and know that inhaling will kill them so they're holding their breath. It's natural human instinct on their part.
I also dislike gas for executions because it makes it too easy, clean, and scalable for the state. Governments can't make a room that just suddenly hangs everyone in it when a button is pressed. If we must have executions (and I oppose them in general) it should be hanging or guillotine.
I also dislike gas for executions because it makes it too easy, clean, and scalable for the state. Governments can't make a room that just suddenly hangs everyone in it when a button is pressed.
Yeah...there is also some historical precedent you usually don't want to be associated with...
You don't gasp for air. I've seen controlled experiments with people on pure nitrogen and they don't even notice what's happening. They just get a little loopy and stop being able to function more and more.
It's possible the people executed in this manner so far were all trying to hold their breath and hurting themselves, but it seems just as likely to me that they either were not using pure nitrogen or were sealing the face mask so none of the exhalations escaped.
Like a bomb calorimeter? We could find out how many calories in each person as they go!
Wow. You just said "guillotine" and you are aren't going to be banned for it. Welcome to the fediverse!
I’ve been hearing for years that it’s very hard for the government to find qualified doctors who will work with them on this technology or help administer it, and that makes it extremely hard to carry out reliably. This is far from an isolated incident.
It's also pretty hard to source the chemicals because some of the manufacturers won't sell when they find out what it's being used for.
Kinda makes you wonder about the whole concept when no one wants to be involved.
I wonder if it was like jury duty and anyone could be randomly selected to be the executioner if support for the death penalty would change.
Edit: By wonder, I mean it somewhat flippantly. Like "maybe this ain't such a grand idea if no one wants to be anywhere near it"
There is absolutely a subset of basically any population that would volunteer. Maybe only once, but they would.
Because executions violate the Hippocratic oath.
The angle of execution being a harm is pretty obvious, but on the other hand they could reduce suffering (a harm) by by helping ensure it’s done right. But I guess the oath doesn’t compel them to reduce harm, just not add to it.
In the US, any medical professional participating in an execution loses their credentials. That’s the bare minimum consequence but even Americans sometimes do something slightly right on occasion.
Reminds me of the scene from I'm A Virgo, where Elijah Wood explains why he's becoming an executioner.
Why does the article repeatedly call them 'lethal injections'. They were not.
The whole notion of lethal injections is the product of a sick and cowardly mentality in my view.
I oppose the death penalty in general, but at least the gallows or the firing squad have the decency not to lie about what they are: the state violently ending someone's life in cold blood. The lethal injection is a perverse inversion of medicine, it exists solely to protect the moral blushes of the pieces of crap who carry it out. Only a profoundly immoral political culture could invent something so blatantly perverted in my view. I particularly loathe the concept for this reason:
If executions are gruesome enough the people who order them haven't the stomach to pull the lever on the gallows, the correct response is to abolish the death penalty; not to sanitise it behind a ghastly pseudo-medical ritual which exists solely to allow those people to sleep at night. It is a coward's way to have the death penalty without being considered cruel and despotic, but it is in reality among the most cruel and despotic forms of execution. If executions are to take place at all (and I think they should not) they should be very public, very swift, and very traditional so people are forced to see what the death penalty actually is.
I read once about someone suggesting that a volunteer who was willing to die for his country would carry the nuclear codes imbedded inside his chest. in order to launch thebl president would have to stab him in order to he the codes out to launch a nuclear strike. This way they would have to really evaluate whether it was worth it or not to take so many lives.
It was immediately shot down for being barbaric and horrendous and how could someone suggest such a thing!
Yep. I oppose the death penalty. But if we have it it must be visceral, non scalable, and ideally minimized pain. The executed should also have ultimate say in which method that's available is taken. Its a disgusting, violent, and solemn act and should be treated as such
"Less lethal" injections.
charly kirk only took one lethal injection and died. What a loser.
well it was technically a firing squad unofficially.
Dude had a heart attack. The fuck you talking about?
From a drug overdose
Yeah thankfully a lot of states are finally passing Charlie Kirk Laws outlawing gas station kratom
“We’re going to murder you to show that murder is wrong. You can’t just go killing people to get revenge because you came up with some elaborate ritual to justify it!” Always seemed like a weird take.
Also, we murder murderers but we don’t rape rapists. We don’t rape rapists because we have to be clear that rape is always wrong, no matter what. But we’re ok sending the message that murder is ok when we do it, just not when you do it.
We live in a clown state
How sick is this?
prison systems don’t want to use either of
Every major F.D.A.-approved pharmaceutical manufacturer and several key medical supply companies have blocked the sale of their products for use in lethal injection executions.
Like, imagine a line the Sackler Family won't cross because it's too unprofitable evil. That's where we're at on lethal injection drugs.
I mean, probably not because it's evil so much as it's bad publicity.
From what I recall hearing in the news years ago, it seems that the manufacturers of the main drugs that would be used for this are located outside the US, in countries where the death penalty is not legal, so add a third reason for them not to do it (legal jeopardy).
also the companies that make the drugs dont want to be associated with it, i believe a european country that makes the drug refused tos ell it. so the states have to jury rig a drug cocktail.
Im assuming you're not just being a smart ass, and will give you a real answer:
The human body can be extremely resilient. If you are required to kill someone but not allowed to intentionally prolong the death or inflict unnecessary suffering, you must be really precise. The law is written that way to prevert torturing someone before their death.
In this botched execution, witnesses said her arm was purple and there were 7 sites that needles were used. Imagine attempting to injected a substance into someone's bloodstream 7 times and failing each time. All those liquids have to go somewhere, so it just absolutely ruins everything it touches loose in the body. She complained that her arm felt like it was going to burst. That to me is unnecessary suffering.
If they really wanted to kill someone nearly instantly they would have some type of blast chamber and use enough explosive that someone would basically be exploded in fractions of a second. But somehow that seems messy and barbaric compared to torturing someone like the state did last night.
Curious if those 7 sites were IV attempts or actual injections.
I believe I heard before that part of the problem with lethal injection is getting the IV started. Medical personnel follow this little creed called "Primum Non Nocere" aka first, do no harm, so they very rightfully won't have anything to do with lethal injection. Apparently the people who start the IVs for lethal injection are just whoever they can get to volunteer to start an IV. Starting an IV isn't rocket science, but there are things you need to know, and if it's not in the vein correctly and that isn't recognized it could result in the injection not actually going into the vein and just ending up in her arm to slowly be absorbed by the surrounding tissue, which is something that theoretically could have her getting a lower dose over a longer amount of time instead of the entire dose all at once.
I'm no expert, but I'm guessing to ensure a painless and expedient death. Maybe too much of anything would be vomiting -> excruciating pain -> unnecessary fear/panic -> death instead of.....asleep and dead.
I'm partial to something like a 5-ton boulder being dropped directly onto your face. Death aint pretty anyway, it would be cheap as hell, guaranteed fast and effective. And it would force some much needed conversations around the topic. Why not a boulder to obliterate your head? Who's uncomfortable with it and for what reason?
There's a reason that old timey sentences were "hanged by the neck until dead".
I imagine, without any evidence, that the contemporary legislation is so poorly worded that having been administered the "lethal injection chemicals" is all that the legislation requires.
Aside; bizarrely extra judicial execution by gun shot by cop is OK but not as a court's sentence?
Execution by firing squad is still legal in Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah. Typically other forms of execution must be unavailable for some reason for them to accept firing squad, but it is still an option.
And we’ve all clutched our pearls about it many times. But lethal injection is only more humane for the witnesses. These botched injections are common and the process is not painless by a long shot. The prisoner is simply immobilized by a first injection before a second, excruciating one kills them. I’d seriously consider a bullet to the head if it were me.
What a clusterfuck of a life.
Abused by your parents until you turn 18, and then the state takes over.
America in a nutshell
I was thinking the same thing when I read it. No doubt we'll see an army of public servant dickheads in expensive suits lining up in front of the cameras speaking in a solemn voice about what happened before saying they accept full responsibility, and then go right back to abusing her through legalistic obstructionism and bullshit. The US really is an awful country.
"But your honor the sentence has indeed been carried out and state has no further business with client, I expect their release tomorrow "
This feels like a "ball don't lie" situation.
Or, since the religious conservatives who love life also really like killing people, this is like God ordering a stay of execution.
twice she was attempted on by execution.
You think when she woke up the second time that she said "third times the charm?".
A lethal dose of opiates.
I feel like if a execution doesn't work, the person should be free to go. They already went through the execution and served their sentance.
Then the government would actually give a shit.
Okay, but what if the person you're lining up for death is really unpopular, and I can run a political campaign promising to kill them?
The south never learns.
I'm confused, I thought they ordered a stay on her execution?
A lower court did.
The process to execute Pike began at about 8 p.m., her lawyers said, after the Supreme Court vacated a lower court’s Wednesday morning order that had temporarily blocked the move.
Then God said no to the higher court
/s
The Tennessee Oblast, through massive red run deregulation, cheapened the drug to the point where it will fail.
Thing is, she has kinda done that work herself, despite the incredibly limited resources of an inmate.
She openly talks about how her mental health and past trauma caused her to do it, admits that doesn't mean she's not guilty of doing it, advocates for better mental health care, and during her time in prison, when she wasn't stuck in solitary for literal years on end, she has saved multiple lives of other inmates.
This women did something truly repugnant. But she does not deserve to be murdered for it. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Her boyfriend took a box cutter and carved a pentagram into their victims chest while she was alive and screaming. He got life.
Their friend who taunted and tortured the victim, and stood look out while her head was bashed in? She got parole.
But this one person involved had to spend years in solitary, has repeatedly had her rights denied, and is being murdered by the state.
I'll take a bullet every time.
I've heard too many stories about prolonged and/or agonising death.
No. Give me the device humans have used millions upon millions of times to quickly and effectively end a life.
At this point, I’d just let her rot.
She is a convicted murderer. Her sentence was death. Her attorney even requested death by hanging but the request was denied.
So be it. But the state has failed to hand down the stipulated punishment. The fact is that her punishment resulted in a different outcome than what was deemed to be just.
Doesn't matter who it is, doesn't matter why it happened, doesn't matter how it happened. This was and is a horrendous miscarriage of justice.
The above are just facts. I'm no judge or lawyer, and I can't be the one to decide what happens next. However, in my opinion, she is owed something. I don't know what that something is. But what happened isn't right and was not her fault.
So while you'd "just let her rot", it's my opinion that this would not be in the spirit of a just and competent legal system.
If nothing has worked so far, what more can you do? I’m just being a realist.
@lemmy.world
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, 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.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
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, 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.
go to feed...
This fiasco has been nothing but cruel and unusual punishment over and over again for this woman for a matter that should have been settled 30 years ago. Southern states make me sick - led by the "party of life" my ass. They don't give a single shit about "life" once that person is born.
save