Leaderboard

Honestly this episode just kind of proves that all your hard work in any legal faction can be thrown away on a whim due to backroom dealings. It’s demotivating on a grand scale.

Neighborhood unsafe.

The father has passed. The king is dead. The foundations have been shaken. A true one has left. God bless @AceS|

NEWS • Politics Written by Yunisa DELGADO-FLORES • May 14th, 2022 Resolution to condemn Roe vs. Wade leaker enters the SA State Senate The SAGOP shares their theories as to the leaker's identity, as well as expressing their stance on abortion following the Roe vs. Wade leak The State Capitol building, May 13th, 2022 - Alan Kim. Resolution 28, a resolution seeing to condemn the leaker of the Roe vs. Wade opinion draft, was recently introduced to the State Senate by Senator Adrian Rossi (R). On May the 3rd, 2022 an opinion draft was leaked to the press regarding the overturning of the 1973 case Roe vs. Wade, a landmark case that secured a woman's right to access abortion clinics and treatments without government restrictions, as well as the 1993 case Planned Parenthood vs. Casey which disallowed states to place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions. The draft, written by Justice Alito of the US Supreme Court, contains The removal of Roe vs. Wade would put a woman's right to abortion at risk across the nation. As it stands, there are 16 states that have the right to abortion enshrined in law, including the democrat-leaning states of Colorado, New Jersey and Illinois, and 14 states that have laws in place ready to restrict abortions following Roe vs. Wade's reversal, which include the republican-leaning states of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. San Andreas, by the time this article has been released, has no law neither protecting a woman's access to abortion clinics nor any bill planning to restrict a woman's access to abortion treatments. An attempt to pass a bill enshrining a woman's right to access safe and legal abortions was introduced by former senator Edward Ulf (D) in 2021. The Women's Health Act of 2021 would have secured the right of medical clinics across San Andreas to legally conduct abortions, while also enabling and supporting a woman's choice to either abort or keep the fetus in the legislature. It would have enshrined the Roe vs. Wade ruling into the San Andreas Legislature. The Women's Health Act of 2021 failed to reach the floor. Sen. Rossi stated in an interview that the reason for this was due to other bills being "given priority", partially due to the ruling of Roe vs. Wade still standing. Resolution 28, named A Resolution to Condemn the U.S. Supreme Court Draft Leaker, was proposed by Sen. Rossi. The resolution claims that the leak was politically motivated and suggested it undermines the Justices' ability to act impartially. It calls for the leaker's immediate disbarment and removal from the US Supreme Court. The resolution also commends Justice John Roberts for a "swift response" in confirming the validity of the leak. On the day of the leak, Justice Roberts directed the court marshal to launch an investigation into the identity and source of the leak. If the resolution were to pass, the State Senate would officially condemn the leaker on the national stage. The San Andreas GOP made a press release condemning the leaker as a party not long after the resolution was introduced to the Senate. The release states that the leakage should not be tolerated, and claims that the leaker is "undoubtedly" a "left-wing law clerk who's upset at the court's directive" Jonathan Spencer, former republican senator and current chairman of the SAGOP, expanded upon the press releases' claims when asked for a comment. He stated that he believes the intent of the leak was to "put pressure" on the justices to "sway" their votes. Likewise, he also claims that the leak was orchestrated by a "left-wing group." As of May the 14th, the identity of the leaker is still unknown. Sen. Rossi reaffirmed their party's beliefs in a brief interview with LSDN, where he stated that he was "shocked and deeply disappointed" in the culprit. Sen. Rossi connects the leak towards the protests, "calls to arms" across the nation - specifically noting Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot's tweet - and alleged threats towards the Supreme Court Justices. The "Call to Arms" in question, tweeted by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot on May the 10th. Sen. Rossi also told the Daily that there are plans by the SAGOP to introduce a bill related to women's abortion rights if Roe vs. Wade were to be repealed, however he was not at liberty to say what the bill would entail. The SAGOP Chairman Spence likewise refused to comment on key details to what this bill may include, telling the Daily News that it was still in it's draft. However, he did note that the bill's draft includes "bipartisan points" with the expressed goal of making it "as fair as possible to men and women across San Andreas". When Sen. Rossi was questioned on his views on a woman's access to abortion clinics, he stated women should be permitted access to abortion clinics under "right and lawful circumstances". The SAGOP chairman Spencer however took a more hard-line stance where he told the Daily News of his belief that abortion is "murder". Describing themselves as a Christian, they note how in the bible a child is recognized upon conception, as said in Jeremiah 1:15. and that the bible doesn't distinguish between an unborn fetus and an infant. He also explained how the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes fetuses as human beings and grants them personhood in the eyes of the law. Under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, if a fetus were to be killed due to an act of violence against the mother, the culprit would be charged with the death as if they killed a person. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act contains provisions that specifically exclude abortions from it's rulings, where neither the mother nor the medical practitioner can be charged for choosing to abort the baby. However, if Roe vs. Wade were to be repealed, the Senate and Congress would be free to be amended the bill to remove these provisions. If Roe vs. Wade is reversed, then abortion clinics will continue to be permitted to operate and provide services in Los Santos and throughout San Andreas, providing no legislation changes that. Women would also be free to seek out legal methods of abortion throughout the state. If the possible repeal of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey's ruling goes through too, there would be no requirement of the state, clinics nor cities to ensure there isn't an "undue burden" in seeking abortions. This means that women, while legally having access to abortions, may find the process harder or more costly. This could be due to new laws brought forth in the senate or changes in policies at medical clinics. Minority Leader Diana Jones declined to comment, saying that they will be expressing their views on the matter during the next senate hearing; it is scheduled to take place next week. They have expressed their interest in sharing their thoughts and answering questions after the hearing. The Los Santos Daily News is awaiting further comments from a number of Democrat Senators who have also stated that they are interested in sharing their thoughts and beliefs with us. Comments are enabled: Username: Comment: ((all mother that is holy i want bbcode))

Pretty much. Don't like your faction leader(s)? Go cry to Nervous, have them removed and have yourself put in their place. Why even bother? I've no problems with anybody in this but the people claiming they want to go back to an "IC SD" are the ones, ironically, pursuing OOC means of having people stripped from their positions and celebrating the victory in OOC channels. Very IC!

Edit: No longer the case. See my post like a page later.

Man posted the screen as we were talking keep it going strong homies

A Green State

Based on this report I filed that backfired against me, fear RP must be followed even if someone just mentions they are armed and they will hurt you, even if that information is not verifiable and they did not provide any other roleplay apart from dialogue, with no weapons brandished. Could we get a clarification on this please, if I'm getting my first warning in a year over it and potentially effect my administrative punishments in the future because of it I'd like to know exactly what the ruling is on the "stop i'll shoot you, so act scared" verdict. It sets a horrible precedent for future incidents in my opinion. We should not have to be forced to act scared over something that is not defined.

On May 2, I announced internally in the faction Discord that the faction would archive in the near future. This was the result of many simultaneous happenings, including Richard Castellani's CK and the waning motivation of faction leadership/numerous soldiers to continue pursuing the concept. For a time, this was delayed on paper to allow those who wish to continue the concept and/or their characters ample time to prepare. I have had a great time in the faction for about ten months, as have many others for as long as three years. Thanks to all of you who contributed to making Conti what it was, including all 276 pages of history and lore recorded on this thread. @Ohngesicht