Apr 9, 2025
Have you seen Night of the Creeps (1986)?
Yes
No
Haven’t even heard of this movie
Voting ended onApr 16, 2025
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Iraq
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Mexico
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
Have you seen Night of the Creeps (1986)?
Yes
No
Haven’t even heard of this movie
Favorite horror movie characters 199/♾️
James Carpenter (J.C.) Hooper - Night of the Creeps
The Alabama Solution
directed by Andrew Jarecki and Charlotte Kaufman, 2025
“As the adage goes, be careful what you pray for.”
Nina Martin at Mother Jones:
In the nearly three years since the US Supreme Court overturned the national right to abortion, grassroots abortion funds and advocates have facilitated care for thousands of patients living in states where abortion is banned, helping them find providers in other parts of the country, organize their travel, and pay some or all of the costs. That’s what Alabama advocates were expecting to do when that state’s near-total abortion ban took effect the day Roe v. Wade fell. Instead, these advocates found themselves embroiled in an epic legal battle with Alabama’s attorney general, who threatened to use a criminal conspiracy statute from 1896 to prosecute anyone who helped pregnant patients obtain an abortion in another state—charges potentially punishable by decades in prison. Now, in a decision that could have major implications for states’ efforts to regulate abortion help and helpers in the post-Roe era, a federal judge in Montgomery, Alabama, has ruled that Attorney General Steve Marshall’s threats to prosecute abortion advocates violate fundamental protections for free speech and the right to travel. “Alabama’s criminal jurisdiction does not reach beyond its borders, and it cannot punish what its residents do lawfully in another State,” US District Judge Myron H. Thompson declared in a 131-page ruling issued Monday, adding: “The Attorney General cannot prosecute those who assist people in Alabama to travel out of state to obtain a lawful abortion.” “It is one thing for Alabama to outlaw by statute what happens in its own backyard,” Thompson wrote. “It is another thing for the state to enforce its values and laws, as chosen by the attorney general, outside its boundaries by punishing its citizens and others who help individuals travel to another state to engage in conduct that is lawful there but the attorney general finds to be contrary to Alabama’s values and laws.”
The ruling was immediately hailed by abortion rights advocates. “We won! Our abortion fund is reopened!” Kelsea McLain, health care access director of Alabama’s Yellowhammer Fund, texted in reaction to the ruling Monday evening. “Immediately! We’ve already funded our first abortion!” A request to Marshall’s office for comment was not immediately answered. The case consists of lawsuits by Yellowhammer—the state’s only abortion fund—and a trio of former abortion providers, including the West Alabama Women’s Center (now WAWC Healthcare) in Tuscaloosa and Dr. Yashica Robinson, an OB-GYN in Huntsville. Before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe, Yellowhammer and the providers worked together closely to help patients throughout Alabama get abortion care; indeed, for a couple of years before Roe fell, Yellowhammer owned WAWC.
[...]
Alabama has long had a reputation for pushing the legal envelope when it comes to reproductive rights—including laws and court decisions enshrining fetal personhood and declaring frozen embryos to be “extrauterine children.” At the time of its passage in 2019, its Human Rights Protection Act—blocked while Roe was the law of the land—was the most restrictive abortion law enacted in the US since the 1970s. Marshall’s threats against abortion helpers were especially alarming to reproductive justice activists because they were so broad. Theoretically, Alabama’s criminal conspiracy law could apply to anyone in the state who helps someone do something in another state that would be a crime in Alabama, even if that conduct is legal in that other state. In court documents, Marshall argued that even if another state allows abortion, helpers could be charged under Alabama’s conspiracy law because the actual help occurs in Alabama, where abortion is banned. But Thompson wrote in Monday’s decision that, according to Marshall’s logic, “the Alabama Attorney General would have within his reach the authority to prosecute Alabamians planning a Las Vegas bachelor party, complete with casinos and gambling, since casino-style gambling is outlawed in Alabama.” The judge added: “As the adage goes, be careful what you pray for.”
Thompson also ruled that the advocates’ support for people seeking abortions was a form of speech. “The court finds that Yellowhammer Fund’s act of pledging and providing funds on behalf of pregnant Alabamians who seek a legal abortion outside Alabama is expressive conduct, and, therefore, subject to First Amendment protection.”
A big win for reproductive freedom in Alabama: in Yellowhammer Fund v. Marshall, Alabama cannot charge those who help abortion patients get out-of-state abortions.
See Also:
AP, via The Guardian: Judge rules Alabama cannot prosecute those who help with out-of-state abortions
There is no evidence that transgender girls have a significant biological advantage in sports.
Mira Lazine at LGBTQ Nation:
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall joined 23 other states in filing an amicus brief in support of banning trans girls from sports. Specifically, the brief asks the Supreme Court to review and overturn an injunction placed on Arizona’s ban on transgender athletes by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Marshall wrote the brief alongside Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin and with support from Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. The court instituted the injunction in September in a 3-0 decision in response to Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act, which enacted a blanket ban on transgender girls in girls’ sports, regardless of how long they had been transitioning and if they were on puberty blockers. The plaintiffs in the case were two trans girls and their parents suing to overturn the law.
[...]
The amicus brief makes several arguments in favor of banning transgender girls from sports. One such claim is that it would be expensive and difficult for schools to implement policies allowing trans girls to participate on girls’ sports teams – an argument that ignores the ease with which many schools across the country have implemented trans-friendly policies.
The brief also argues that sex is not equivalent to gender identity under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution – a claim that ignores established precedent from the Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which ruled that trans people are subject to sex-based protections due to their gender modality. The Attorneys General then make two legal arguments, claiming that the Circuit Court made its decision on erroneous grounds and that other readings of the law may be more plausible. They also argue that a rational-basis review is required to determine if the plaintiffs’ claim is underinclusive. This means that an additional overview, informed by constitutional law, would be done to determine if the argument being made is internally consistent with equal protection – if not, it would get thrown out. It is unclear whether these arguments will hold up in court. SCOTUS has given no public indication of whether it will take this case. It has already accepted the case of United States v. Skrmetti, which will determine whether states can legally ban gender-affirming care for minors.
There is no evidence that transgender girls have a significant biological advantage in sports. Rather, evidence suggests that transitioning levels the playing field.
24 Republican Attorneys General file transphobia-fueled amicus brief in Petersen v. Doe to convince the MAGA majority on SCOTUS to uphold bigoted bans on trans women from women’s sports that has zero to with “protecting women’s sports” and “competitive fairness.”
Night of the Creeps, Spanish lobby card. Spanish theatrical release 1988 Submitted by @videorecord
31 Day Horror Challenge:
Day 22: Creepy Crawlies
Now Watching: Night of the Creeps (1986)
"Alien brain parasites, entering humans through the mouth, turn their host into a killing zombie. Some teenagers start to fight against them"
Happy Halloween!
@nightmareonfilmstreet
Alabama’s attorney general argued in a court filing that the state has the authority to bring conspiracy charges against groups who help wom