NinthMusketeer wrote: We glorify it in ways we didn't use to. Combine with US culture placing value on fame of any sort; dying in infamy is seen as a better outcome than living in obscurity. It's rarely stated explicitly but it isn't hard to see it. Take a gun to a school and fire it you'll make national news, actually hit someone and it's national news for a week, kill a few people and it's a month in the spotlight. Constrast with a culutre that has a different value system, like Japan, where the same type of person kills just themself instead.
This really isn't true. Even way back in the past gun violence was glorified, be it through rose tinted glasses looking back on the wild west or the massive media coverage of Bonnie amd Clyde.
They will do everything to avoid a personal interview, but in the end declining will only make matters look worse. Trump himself seemed less phased by it in the past than his lawyers.
That's because Trumps lawyers have an accurate understanding of Trumps mental faculties, whereas Trump does not.
In other news the 2015 doctor's letter from Trump was dictated by Trump himself the doctor now says. As has been widely suspected. Probably a similar story behind the Jackson briefing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We glorify it in ways we didn't use to. Combine with US culture placing value on fame of any sort; dying in infamy is seen as a better outcome than living in obscurity. It's rarely stated explicitly but it isn't hard to see it. Take a gun to a school and fire it you'll make national news, actually hit someone and it's national news for a week, kill a few people and it's a month in the spotlight. Constrast with a culutre that has a different value system, like Japan, where the same type of person kills just themself instead.
This really isn't true. Even way back in the past gun violence was glorified, be it through rose tinted glasses looking back on the wild west or the massive media coverage of Bonnie amd Clyde.
That's besides the point; nothing to do with shooters getting quick & easy national media coverage.
Maybe it wasn't as quick and easy, but look at how people like John Dillinger and Billy the Kid and so on and so forth were glorified. Is the breathless coverage on CNN really different then the dime novels Ned Buntline turned out, or the headlines about the public enemies years later? I think it's accurate to say we've always romanticized crime and gun violence.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We glorify it in ways we didn't use to. Combine with US culture placing value on fame of any sort; dying in infamy is seen as a better outcome than living in obscurity. It's rarely stated explicitly but it isn't hard to see it. Take a gun to a school and fire it you'll make national news, actually hit someone and it's national news for a week, kill a few people and it's a month in the spotlight. Constrast with a culutre that has a different value system, like Japan, where the same type of person kills just themself instead.
This really isn't true. Even way back in the past gun violence was glorified, be it through rose tinted glasses looking back on the wild west or the massive media coverage of Bonnie amd Clyde.
That's besides the point; nothing to do with shooters getting quick & easy national media coverage.
It isn't though. Going on a spree has always been an effective way to get national media coverage. Nothing has changed in that regard but, if anything, the coverage has changed so as to make fame/infamy through spree shooting less romanticised and much more critical.
People were also just as desiring of fame in the past as well. Be it to be known like Billy the Kid, Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickok in the old west, like John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde or Al Capone in the 20s and 30s, etc.
Spree shooting as a means to acquire fame and people's desire for fame has not really undergone any radical shift.
They will do everything to avoid a personal interview, but in the end declining will only make matters look worse. Trump himself seemed less phased by it in the past than his lawyers.
That's because Trumps lawyers have an accurate understanding of Trumps mental faculties, whereas Trump does not.
Ouze wrote: Maybe it wasn't as quick and easy, but look at how people like John Dillinger and Billy the Kid and so on and so forth were glorified. Is the breathless coverage on CNN really different then the dime novels Ned Buntline turned out, or the headlines about the public enemies years later? I think it's accurate to say we've always romanticized crime and gun violence.
And then consider the portrayals in film of both Billy and Dillinger. The modern spree shooter is never going to have such a romanticised depiction of themselves or their crimes in Hollywood as either of those two have had. The way that the media examines and reacts to that kind of violence has actually shifted against the spree shooter.
There's a very distinct difference between outlaws and spree shooters. Outlaws have our sympathy because they combine the American dream (being rich) with the other American dream- freedom. They take what they want at any cost. I think they would have been as famous if they had avoided violence entirely. If Al Capone had run a smuggling and corruption ring, then he would be viewed as similar to the Dukes of Hazard. we love entrepreneurs, and outlaws- after all, we're a country founded in treason and rebellion.
Spree shooters though, are killing to no purpose. We don't remember their message, or their goals, and no one makes movies about them, except to document their mental instabilities. We fear them, no doubt. But I don't think any spree killers will wander into the halls of legends- the massacres will be remembered, but the shooters won't.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We glorify it in ways we didn't use to. Combine with US culture placing value on fame of any sort; dying in infamy is seen as a better outcome than living in obscurity. It's rarely stated explicitly but it isn't hard to see it. Take a gun to a school and fire it you'll make national news, actually hit someone and it's national news for a week, kill a few people and it's a month in the spotlight. Constrast with a culutre that has a different value system, like Japan, where the same type of person kills just themself instead.
This really isn't true. Even way back in the past gun violence was glorified, be it through rose tinted glasses looking back on the wild west or the massive media coverage of Bonnie amd Clyde.
That's besides the point; nothing to do with shooters getting quick & easy national media coverage.
It isn't though. Going on a spree has always been an effective way to get national media coverage. Nothing has changed in that regard but, if anything, the coverage has changed so as to make fame/infamy through spree shooting less romanticised and much more critical.
People were also just as desiring of fame in the past as well. Be it to be known like Billy the Kid, Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickok in the old west, like John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde or Al Capone in the 20s and 30s, etc.
Spree shooting as a means to acquire fame and people's desire for fame has not really undergone any radical shift.
It absolutely has. Even if, as you say, the level of response is identical it has still changed because of exposure. But your argument remains besides the point, both because I explained above why negative fame is still relevant and because your 'examples' aren't anything of the sort. Those aren't individuals who went to a school or public location and shot random people.
All you establishment Republicans, brace yourselves because your next savior is back in Politics! That's right! T-Paw (Tim Pawlenty) is running for Governor of Minnesota again!
I am interested to see how he tacks. In the past, he was known for running the Legislature that sabotaged Gov. Ventura's efforts to do.... things. Then he got elected Governor and it was the ususal establishment R stuff. He might do OK in MN since Trump lost the Priamry here to Rubio indicating that the MN R's might be a bit more stable. However, my local R's have sent some pretty strange birds to Congress before such as Representatives M. Bachmann, T. Emmer, and J. Lewis. However, those districts were pretty tightly Gerrymandered. We will see.
T-Paw has tough opposition from the Dems this year with Tim Walz who use to be the 1st District Congressman for MN. He comes from a rural, conservative district that went Trump int he last election, but has managed to fight off R challengers by being a good friend to the local Farmers. He might have the chops to appeal enough to rural voters and not alienate the city folks.
So it looks like one of the complications with Trump's legal team setting up a possible interview with Mueller is that much of the material in question seemingly requires a security clearance...but the last lawyer on Trump's team to have a security clearance left two months ago
Apparently they are trying to get Sekulow a clearance, but he does not have one as yet.
Vaktathi wrote: So it looks like one of the complications with Trump's legal team setting up a possible interview with Mueller is that much of the material in question seemingly requires a security clearance...but the last lawyer on Trump's team to have a security clearance left two months ago
Apparently they are trying to get Sekulow a clearance, but he does not have one as yet.
No matter who he chooses, it will end up being the prestigious firm of Howard, Fine, and Howard....
Vaktathi wrote: So it looks like one of the complications with Trump's legal team setting up a possible interview with Mueller is that much of the material in question seemingly requires a security clearance...but the last lawyer on Trump's team to have a security clearance left two months ago
Apparently they are trying to get Sekulow a clearance, but he does not have one as yet.
There will be no interview. That's about the most stupid move anyone could possibly do. Even Trump would have to see that.
Vaktathi wrote: So it looks like one of the complications with Trump's legal team setting up a possible interview with Mueller is that much of the material in question seemingly requires a security clearance...but the last lawyer on Trump's team to have a security clearance left two months ago
Apparently they are trying to get Sekulow a clearance, but he does not have one as yet.
There will be no interview. That's about the most stupid move anyone could possibly do. Even Trump would have to see that.
He dictated the most ludicrous, over the top letter of health to his doctor, in textbook Trumpspeak, and thought the whole world wouldn't immediately know. Self awareness is a dump stat for the orange buffoon.
So who knows what the real story is with the “raid” by Team Trump on his precious doctor and taking the medical records. But based on my understanding, even though those records are about Trump they don’t belong to Trump. We don’t own our own medical records, they belong to whatever provider and/or organization created them. Did I get this concept messed up in my head?
d-usa wrote: So who knows what the real story is with the “raid” by Team Trump on his precious doctor and taking the medical records. But based on my understanding, even though those records are about Trump they don’t belong to Trump. We don’t own our own medical records, they belong to whatever provider and/or organization created them. Did I get this concept messed up in my head?
IIRC HIPAA states a patient has a right to copies of their records, but that's nowhere near saying they have exclusive rights to them or can seize them.
Weird parallels seem to be setting up here - a directed theft by the pres.'s men? That sure never happened in US history right?
One of President Trump's recent series of tweets is completely off the rails.
"So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!" - @realDonaldTrump, 12:47 PM - May 1, 2018
Followed by;
"It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened! Witch Hunt!" - @realDonaldTrump, 1:34 PM - May 1, 2018
1. The questions appears to have been leaked from the Trump camp.
2. There was plenty of questions on collusion.
3. You can indeed obstruct an investigation that ends up showing no crime took place, and you would still have committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
4. The investigation was, according to President Donald Trump of a few months ago, entirely based on the (supposedly discredited) Steele Dossier. Remember all the FISA nonsense? Now it appears to have been based on "illegally leaked classified information". Does he refer to the Comey Memos?
d-usa wrote: So who knows what the real story is with the “raid” by Team Trump on his precious doctor and taking the medical records. But based on my understanding, even though those records are about Trump they don’t belong to Trump. We don’t own our own medical records, they belong to whatever provider and/or organization created them. Did I get this concept messed up in my head?
IIRC HIPAA states a patient has a right to copies of their records, but that's nowhere near saying they have exclusive rights to them or can seize them.
Weird parallels seem to be setting up here - a directed theft by the pres.'s men? That sure never happened in US history right?
Well at least we know where the Big Lebowski went. He was Trump's doc...
Trump is all about that narrative. And it's easy to drive the narrative if your side leaks the things that become the talking points you want them to be.
I didn't realize the President can rewrite Title 10 and invent a new branch.
I wonder if we had both a civilian agency that handles space, and a branch of our military that is already sending some mystery space planes around our planet that could handle such a thing...
BaronIveagh wrote: I hate to mention this, but I seem to recall some international treaties expressly forbidding well, THIS.
Huh? I thought we couldn't put WMDs in space...
Article IV of the Outer Space treaty prohibits so much as conducting maneuvers on other celestial bodies and expressly limits them to peaceful purposes. Trump's Space Force would only be able to operate around Earth, and cannot deploy WMDs, so.....
The Trump administration reportedly will not follow an Obama-era executive order that requires it to release a yearly report on the number of civilians and enemy fighters killed by U.S. anti-terrorism strikes.
Even under Obama those numbers were rather suspicious when every male over 15 is kinda/sorta classified as a enemy combatant (or whatever the loosening of the definition meant). If I remember correctly–from some independent reports–then Trump had increase drone attacks immensely (and was more indiscriminate) and was nearing Obama yearly numbers in civilian deaths his first three months (or something like that). It's all just horrifying and depressing.
They will do everything to avoid a personal interview, but in the end declining will only make matters look worse. Trump himself seemed less phased by it in the past than his lawyers.
He probably doesn't even know what exactly that means, just that it's a hassle and maybe a threat to him in some vague way. And an interview, he'd probably think that he can argue his way out of any problem better than anybody else and actually just agree to do it because he has quite a high opinion of his intellect.
Frazzled wrote:
Vaktathi wrote: So it looks like one of the complications with Trump's legal team setting up a possible interview with Mueller is that much of the material in question seemingly requires a security clearance...but the last lawyer on Trump's team to have a security clearance left two months ago
Apparently they are trying to get Sekulow a clearance, but he does not have one as yet.
There will be no interview. That's about the most stupid move anyone could possibly do. Even Trump would have to see that.
I want to say "wanna bet?" but I have a strange feeling that I might accidentally win before hitting the Submit button. Trump is not a smart man and quite impulsive.
The smallest branch of the 7 Uniformed Services has 379 officers. The 2nd smallest branch (mine) has around 6,500.
Once you get to the Armed Forces, the smallest of them (Coast Guard) has ~42,000 personnel.
Unless we are going to start creating an enlisted force of Space Infantry to occupy the moon or some stupid idea like that, there is simply no reason to create a Space Force. The Air Force is already running programs such as the Boeing X-37, and NASA is running the rest of the Space Program. If anything I could maybe see the creation of an 8th Uniformed Service and call it the NASA Commissioned Corps. But there is no need to have an armed Space Force until the aliens attack.
And honestly, can anybody really picture Trump giving this speech?
Guess I was the only one that played COD: Advanced Warfare? They make drop pods to insert response teams from high orbit. Under a proper administration, that would be pretty badass.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Guess I was the only one that played COD: Advanced Warfare? They make drop pods to insert response teams from high orbit. Under a proper administration, that would be pretty badass.
Yeah, SUSTAIN has been a thing for years with the Marines and DARPA, but when DARPA did Hot Eagle they discovered that you had this problem with the men being liquefied when you did that. Fortunately they did the math before they tried it with something living.
BaronIveagh wrote: I hate to mention this, but I seem to recall some international treaties expressly forbidding well, THIS.
Huh? I thought we couldn't put WMDs in space...
Article IV of the Outer Space treaty prohibits so much as conducting maneuvers on other celestial bodies and expressly limits them to peaceful purposes. Trump's Space Force would only be able to operate around Earth, and cannot deploy WMDs, so.....
Article IV States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.
...so long as we don't put WMDs in space, nor use the moon (or celestial bodies) for non-research or non-peaceful purposes, should be kosher...no?
THat's a direct quote. I went to grab the video, but I couldn't check if the video was him saying it, or people talking about him saying it, because I can't run the video at work.
The jellyfish are really out in force for this admin. And I can't believe the association folded so quickly, they think they were being too rude about people who engage in racism and falsehoods on a daily basis. Is having your one day in the sun so important you will just bend over at the first hint of critique? These really are unbelievable times. Each day we go further down the rabbit hole of insanity.
The problem is the correspondents association is built around the working relationship between the White House and the reporters. It's always been about treading a line between maintaining a balance between keeping an objective position in reporting on the White House, while also maintaining a healthy relationship not only to get privileged access but even just to make sure the daily events of the White House are covered sufficiently.
It's a reality that every White House for decades has manipulated that, and encouraged the media to give more favourable reporting than really should be the case. To an extent you just have to live with that. Between a White House with an overt political cause, and a reporting corps trying to find a balance between objectivity and access, the natural state will always be reporting that favours the administration.
But that question takes on a whole new frame when the White House is occupied by Trump and his collection of liars. How neutral can reporters be when dealing with out and out lies from the administration, and still be giving any kind of value to the public? And what's the point of maintaining access to the pres secretary, when all she does is stonewall, lie and attack the media? And what's the point in even getting a list of admin staffers who are available for interview on each day, when we all know they're going to lie freely when interviewed?
I honestly don't know the answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I just wanted to comment on the Michele Wolf thing - it's pretty funny to see supporters of a president who has crudely insulted many women, veterans, the disabled and whoever else get so upset over a comedian making some edgy jokes.
The hypocrisy is pretty delicious. I thought left wing people were the snowflakes?!
THat's a direct quote. I went to grab the video, but I couldn't check if the video was him saying it, or people talking about him saying it, because I can't run the video at work.
The jellyfish are really out in force for this admin. And I can't believe the association folded so quickly, they think they were being too rude about people who engage in racism and falsehoods on a daily basis. Is having your one day in the sun so important you will just bend over at the first hint of critique? These really are unbelievable times. Each day we go further down the rabbit hole of insanity.
The problem is the correspondents association is built around the working relationship between the White House and the reporters. It's always been about treading a line between maintaining a balance between keeping an objective position in reporting on the White House, while also maintaining a healthy relationship not only to get privileged access but even just to make sure the daily events of the White House are covered sufficiently.
It's a reality that every White House for decades has manipulated that, and encouraged the media to give more favourable reporting than really should be the case. To an extent you just have to live with that. Between a White House with an overt political cause, and a reporting corps trying to find a balance between objectivity and access, the natural state will always be reporting that favours the administration.
But that question takes on a whole new frame when the White House is occupied by Trump and his collection of liars. How neutral can reporters be when dealing with out and out lies from the administration, and still be giving any kind of value to the public? And what's the point of maintaining access to the pres secretary, when all she does is stonewall, lie and attack the media? And what's the point in even getting a list of admin staffers who are available for interview on each day, when we all know they're going to lie freely when interviewed?
I honestly don't know the answer.
The answer is simply call balls and strike... and make clear what is news vs. punditry. Too many folks conflate the two...
As for the WH correspondents association dinner... keep doing that, but cut out the "roasting" your ideological opponents... the tradition of this roast was done between friends more often than not.
whembly wrote: Why are you ignoring that Senate Democrats can easily stop anything their counter parts wishes to pass?
Because 'can' isn't 'are'. Theoretically, Democrats could be running filibuster on issue after issue, and truth is if Republicans actually had policy getting up Democrats would probably block most of it and it would like a lot like much of the Obama administration, but with the roles reversed. But Democrats aren't blocking anything, because there's nothing getting up for an actual vote. Stuff like DREAMER reform fell over, but it failed to get to a straight majority, and it wasn't even that close, the preferred Trump (really John Kelly plan) got to 46 votes, with no-one even looking like they might be won over to the case. In contrast the bi-partisan bill that McConnell refused to put on the floor had 56 confirmed votes, and would have produced a Republican filibuster.
The argument that the legislative block is due to any Democratic tactics is pure fantasy. It's "both sides" as nothing but an argument of blind faith, with no reality behind it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: So Iran has been lying and kept an active Nuclear program... but the US (specifically Republicans) are the vile evil morons?
Iran had a weapons program, which ended 15 years ago, and which has been known about and even made part of official IAEA reports and analysis in the years subsequent.
So Netanyahu turning up on FOX & Friends to lobby to talk about whether we can trust Iran because they once had a secret program we learned about years ago is pure trash, and anyone who falls for it badly lacks for critical analysis. Because the framing Netanyahu puts on the issue is obvious bunk, the Iran deal isn't built around blind faith in Iran, it's built around a massive team of inspectors constantly reviewing Iranian activities.
BaronIveagh wrote: I hate to mention this, but I seem to recall some international treaties expressly forbidding well, THIS.
Huh? I thought we couldn't put WMDs in space...
Article IV of the Outer Space treaty prohibits so much as conducting maneuvers on other celestial bodies and expressly limits them to peaceful purposes. Trump's Space Force would only be able to operate around Earth, and cannot deploy WMDs, so.....
Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.
...so long as we don't put WMDs in space, nor use the moon (or celestial bodies) for non-research or non-peaceful purposes, should be kosher...no?
Indeed. Military Ships and Space Stations are 100% ok, provided they only have conventional weapons. Bases on moons and planets are not.
whembly wrote: However, the House passed a feth tons of bills over the years, it's the Senate that's the stick in the mud.
Nonsense argument, and you know it's a nonsense argument. The House passes bills knowing they will die in the Senate. Claiming that's productive is the opposite of reality.
But, don't forget the Democrats are utilizing every procedural tool to slow down the Senate, as it's their prerogative.
They're definitely doing that and it's had some impact in slowing judicial appointments. But it hasn't produced any impact on legislation at all. If it did, you'd be able to name a bill sitting in senate with 50+1 votes that the Democrats are fillibustering. But you can't, because there's not one.
Mitch would fully have to go nuclear (meaning no more 60th vote), which he doesn't want to do. Otherwise, the minority holds considerable sway whether or not a bill gets to the floor.
To pass what? What bill is currently sitting in the senate with 50+1 votes, that Democrats are filibustering?
Dude... it confirms all the critic's suspicions. (provided its not made up).
What? It confirms the suspicions of no-one, because there is literally not one knew bit of new info. The weapons programs he listed are more than a decade old, and have been not just known about in the West, they've been known to the public for a long time, even included in previous IAEA reports on Iranian activity.
It is a a big pile of who gives a crap. But Netanyahu isn't actually engaging in a public debate on this, instead speaking to an audience of one by going on FOX & Friends and looking to manipulate the President in to doing something that would advantage Netanyahu and probably no-one else on the planet.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thing is, Bush is strongly associated with the 2008 crash. And while it's far from his fault exclusively it's also pretty fair to make that connection. And when people are making that connection, those tax cuts are what comes to mind first. People still remember that recession keenly, especially millenials who are still being screwed by it. It's also a more direct slap in the face when the wealthy get permanent cuts while the ones for the rest of us are temporary (and it's well known).
Do the tax cuts come to mind first? I would have thought banking regulation comes to mind more freely, and most Obama era banking regs are being dismantled with little fanfare. I mean, it might sound like I'm doubting your analysis but I'm not, I'm genuinely asking the question. While I think I'm across most things in US politics, one thing being an Australian means is that I don't have contact with regular people, I don't get a feel for stuff like how keenly the GFC is felt there and how much it impacts people's ideas on policies to
I think perhaps there are some other likely explanations, which all link together, also link to your explanation. The first is that Republicans have been running this con for almost four decades. The first time, under Reagan, it benefited greatly from happening to coincide with a short, sharp boom (which was actually due to monetary policy, not the tax cut), so people saw Reagan pass the tax cut, then he saw jobs and wages grow. But then each iteration since saw growth that was only standard, or even slower than average. Even this round is already shaping as a bust, there's been no increase in business investment, and job growth is actually slowing (though that's more likely due to the economy finally returning to capacity). People are starting to notice the much promised boom never actually eventuates.
The second issue is that we've just come off 8 years of Republicans banging on about the deficit daily, and claiming it was the biggest national issue. Almost by mistake, Republicans might have actually trained voters to realise that when you cut revenue, then sooner or later you have to pay for it, either with higher taxes later on, or with spending cuts. So when Republicans just weeks after their tax cut switched to claiming the deficit is a problem and there needs to be fixed by cutting the social safety net, people are connecting those issues.
The last is that there really is bugger all in this bill for people who aren't very rich, and most of it is temporary. People might be swayed to ignore the rich getting a trillion in benefits when their own take home pay goes up a few hundred a week, but when its going up a couple of dollars are week it's very different.
The great irony is how the wealthy are cultivating their own demise. Like gun advocates but on a much bigger scale.
That's a really good point. The rich and gun owners have such strong institutional places in the system, they could carry on forever doing very nicely for themselves. But instead they push, and push, and invite a backlash that will see them lose enormously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: On the topic of shootings, schools, etc, may I suggest that perhaps the issue is neither guns nor security measures, but something else?
My grandfather brought firearms to school on a regular basis and just stacked them in the corner of the room to go plinking or rodent hunting after class. He could mail order machineguns to his door via the USPS without background checks or age requirements or NFA paperwork. His schools had no resource officers, and teachers were not armed. And yet...nobody walked through school hallways or nightclubs trying to kill as many people as possible.
What has changed in society, such that some people find that committing such acts to be acceptable recourse to their grievances?
Whether its stalking the halls of a high school with an AR15 or running people down with a rental truck in the streets, why do outliers see this course of action as viable and desireable, when in previous eras they did not? Especially when average levels of daily violence have been decreasing for decades.
I suspect that addressing that question may prove far more productive than gun bans or security measures or whatnot. That said, there is unlikely to be a simple compelling solution that fits into preexisting narratives, but if we really want to see a change, I feel thats where we should look first.
Your mistake is in assuming there is a single factor, not a combination of factors. Consider instead that the pressures that might cause shootings in the US might also exist in other developed countries, but elsewhere those pressures don't happen to exist alongside routine gun ownership and large sections of society immersed in a gun culture.
Think of it this way - when a person tells a health worker they have suicidal impulses to jump off a cliff to their death, the health worker will tell them to move away from their house on a cliff, and stop driving along the mountain road. The first and best way to prevent people dealing with those impulses is to remove the environmental factors that might trigger more instances of those impulses, and might cause them to act on them. A famous example is the Israeli army, which had a serious problem with soldier suicide. The IDF just stopped soldiers taking their guns home on weekends, and suicides dropped 40% immediately.
So now consider a situation where all the pressures of modern life and modern highschool exist, but in one country a troubled kid goes home to a house full of guns, and in another country a kid goes home to a house that's never had a gun, to a lifestyle where the kid has seen a gun maybe two or three times in his life. Which kid has triggers encouraging the fantasy of shooting up his school, and which kid doesn't? So which kid is more likely to actually do it?
Now, all of that doesn't come with a conclusion that gun bans must happen or anything like that. But given all the above, it's basically undeniable that gun proliferation is a major factor in the US's uniquely high rate of murder compared to the rest of the developed world. That's the real starting point for a conversation on this issue.
d-usa wrote: So who knows what the real story is with the “raid” by Team Trump on his precious doctor and taking the medical records. But based on my understanding, even though those records are about Trump they don’t belong to Trump. We don’t own our own medical records, they belong to whatever provider and/or organization created them. Did I get this concept messed up in my head?
Pretty sure you have the right to a copy of your records but the actual record is the property of whatever the medical place is, because they are required by law to keep the records for so long after you stop being a patient.
We're finally going to have a SPACE MARINE branch!!???!?!?!?!
It was my understanding that we already had a military branch for space. Two, actually. I thought the Air Force and the Marines both covered it. I could be wrong though.
Fun fact for the day - a majority of US Muslims support gay marriage, 51 to 34. At the same time white US evangelicals oppose gay marriage, 58% oppose.
Second thing, Mike Pence just held a rally, and called Joe Arpaio up on stage, saying he was a champion of the rule of law. When people like Pence talk about the rule of law, they're not talking about, you know, people and government being constrained by the rule of law, otherwise it would have occurred to them that it's obviously ridiculous to celebrate a guy like Arpaio when the man has been convicted for directly refusing to obey the rule of law. So is it finally clear to everyone that when the right talks about stuff like 'law and order', it doesn't actually involve any actual support for the rule of law? Once we take the word 'law' out, what we're left with is what they're really talking, 'order'. As in the social order, the hierarchy of power. What they want is people who'll pledge to keep the existing order as it is. And what order is that? Well, in addition to criminal contempt of court, Arpaio also has a long history abuse against minorities. That's the order these people crave.
Lastly, does anyone remember December last year, when the Trump admin changed the policy towards supplies to the Ukraine, and started providing weapons in addition to other support? Back then it was presented by Trump supporters as proof that Trump wasn't in Putin's pocket, and the best explanation the anti-Trump side came up with was that it was a way for the Trump camp to claim it doesn't have debts to Putin. Now a more clear explanation has emerged. With the receipt of military aid, we've also seen a sudden end to Ukrainian intel being given to the Mueller investigation. Remember it was Ukrainian information on Manafort, including his ledgers of payments, that was one of the first big discoveries in the Trump/Russia scandal. Ukrainian officials aren't even pretending, here's the NYT quote of one lawmaker, "“In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials... We shouldn’t spoil relations with the administration.” So the weapons were given to buy off a potential witness. And no-one even considered that at the time, really because we hadn't really got our heads around the depths of corruption in the Trump White House.
Relapse wrote: I think it's quite apt since we have students walking out of school in order to protest gun violence and ignoring the fact that alcohol is responsible for around 3400 deaths of children per year and 120,000 being sent the ER per year.
For something not designed to kill, alcohol does a pretty good job of killing people.
No, it's a trash argument for a simple reason that has been explained to you many times before - you cannot look at the cost of some product purely in terms of its negative impacts, you need to weigh that against the benefit. Alcohol is used consumed weekly by 56% of adults. In contrast, less than a third of Americans households have a gun in them, when you factor in multiple adult households we're talking less than a quarter, and of that less than a third report using that gun regularly (whether that's weekly or monthly or user defined I can't remember). So we're talking about around 8% of adults using a gun in any context on a regular basis, and even that figure might be a little inflated by the respondent's understanding of the political impact.
So with greater control on alcohol we're talking about policies that would impact 56% of adults. With greater control on guns we're talking about something that impacts 8% of adults. And even then there's an additional point that most suggested reforms don't actually impact what most of that 8% does with guns on a regular basis, so the number of people negatively impacted is even smaller.
Can you just, please, finally, understand this, and stop raising that factoid now? Because there is actually a decent point buried in the gun death stat, and that's about society needing to accept on some level that people do die, that processed meat causes cancer, alcohol is a poison and guns will be used to shoot people who don't deserve to be shot, and there will be some level of avoidable deaths that society should accept it can't prevent, because individual freedom also matters.
But you bury that point in a very transparently bad argument that pretends a simple death toll comparison means anything, and even when the failing of that argument is explained in thread after thread, you just keep on bringing it up unchanged, over and over again.
A Town Called Malus wrote: And then consider the portrayals in film of both Billy and Dillinger. The modern spree shooter is never going to have such a romanticised depiction of themselves or their crimes in Hollywood as either of those two have had. The way that the media examines and reacts to that kind of violence has actually shifted against the spree shooter.
There's been a half dozen John Dillinger movies, going back to the 40s. The most recent, Public Enemies, is the only version that doesn't romantacise who Dillinger was and what he did.
whembly wrote: The answer is simply call balls and strike... and make clear what is news vs. punditry. Too many folks conflate the two...
That's not really the complexity I'm getting at. Forget punditry, that's an irrelevant distraction, both to this issue and in general
Instead just look at the daily job of being a White House correspondent. Much of the job is actually just routine, receiving official announcements from the White House, often just on administrative stuff like what the president's schedule is on any given day, or what staff are available for interviews. It isn't necessarily going to win anyone a Pulitzer, but its stuff that needs to be done to just get a basic level understanding of what the White House is doing on any given day. Then on top of that there's hanging out in the halls, asking questions to staff as they pass by, and of course building relationships and using that to secure rumours and leaks. All that stuff relies on there being a good relationship between the White House and the press corps. Typically, that relationship has been managed by both sides, both sides working to help the other, in the expectation they'll get helped as well. That's always had a problematic element, close relationships make it more likely for reporters to follow the White House lead on an issue.
But under Trump that relationship has gone from possibly problematic in a certain sense, to completely dysfunctional. This is a White House that routinely makes plainly false statements to the press, and routinely attacks the press, but it is also a White House that constantly leaks incredible stuff to reporters. It's a completely different and deeply weird dynamic, and despite that the press corps has itself pretty much kept on acting like it always has, as if this was another normal administration following the same rules as always.
As for the WH correspondents association dinner... keep doing that, but cut out the "roasting" your ideological opponents... the tradition of this roast was done between friends more often than not.
Did you listen to Wolf's routine? She roasted everyone, the media, the Democrats and the Republicans. It's just the hits on the Republicans landed hardest, because right now there is a Republican president who just happens to be an historically bad president and a genuinely awful human being.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Giuliani actually went on national TV and blabbed that gem...
THE. BEST. PEOPLE.
The only way I can make sense of this is they thought if Cohen was going to be repaid then it doesn't break campaign finance laws. But that would mean Trump and his team of legal eagles that decided on this plan didn't bother to read the bit about needing to report loans as well as donations.
It's like Watergate, if Nixon and all his staff were really lazy idiots.
Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of the Trump-Stormy Daniels-Cohen nexus which doesn't mean Trump had an affair with Daniels and she was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about it?
Kilkrazy wrote: Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of the Trump-Stormy Daniels-Cohen nexus which doesn't mean Trump had an affair with Daniels and she was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about it?
No, that is a given. The second Hanoi Hannah (played by Sarah Sanders in this production), claimed that the case had been won in arbitration, she confirmed that.
Of course, it should be the political death-kneel of a Republican president........but it isn't - because you don't actually have to practice what you preach, when you are a moral-high-horse-grapping political party supposedly representing Christian family values.
You just have to say you are, and count on the fact that your supporters aren't bright enough to notice.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of the Trump-Stormy Daniels-Cohen nexus which doesn't mean Trump had an affair with Daniels and she was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about it?
No, that is a given. The second Hanoi Hannah (played by Sarah Sanders in this production), claimed that the case had been won in arbitration, she confirmed that.
Of course, it should be the political death-kneel of a Republican president........but it isn't - because you don't actually have to practice what you preach, when you are a moral-high-horse-grapping political party supposedly representing Christian family values.
You just have to say you are, and count on the fact that your supporters aren't bright enough to notice.
Not really, an affair with a pornstar might still have been relevant in the campaign to candidate Trump. But those people already knew they were voting for a man with multiple divorces, affairs and a less than low regard for women. Now though? Its just problem number 577 and the affair doesn't even matter to anyone. What matters is what happened after the affair.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of the Trump-Stormy Daniels-Cohen nexus which doesn't mean Trump had an affair with Daniels and she was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about it?
No, that is a given. The second Hanoi Hannah (played by Sarah Sanders in this production), claimed that the case had been won in arbitration, she confirmed that.
Of course, it should be the political death-kneel of a Republican president........but it isn't - because you don't actually have to practice what you preach, when you are a moral-high-horse-grapping political party supposedly representing Christian family values.
You just have to say you are, and count on the fact that your supporters aren't bright enough to notice.
Not really, an affair with a pornstar might still have been relevant in the campaign to candidate Trump. But those people already knew they were voting for a man with multiple divorces, affairs and a less than low regard for women. Now though? Its just problem number 577 and the affair doesn't even matter to anyone. What matters is what happened after the affair.
Indeed. The legal issue isn't whether the President had an affair with a porn star. Cheating on your wife shortly after her having given birth to their son is not an actual crime.
Some people might consider it sinful or immoral, and an indication of the person doing the cheating is a crappy individual, but it isn't actually a crime.
The legal issue is, if campaign funds was used in the pay off agreement, to ensure the supporters of the party and the president wouldn't have to deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of the Trump-Stormy Daniels-Cohen nexus which doesn't mean Trump had an affair with Daniels and she was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about it?
No, that is a given. The second Hanoi Hannah (played by Sarah Sanders in this production), claimed that the case had been won in arbitration, she confirmed that.
Of course, it should be the political death-kneel of a Republican president........but it isn't - because you don't actually have to practice what you preach, when you are a moral-high-horse-grapping political party supposedly representing Christian family values.
You just have to say you are, and count on the fact that your supporters aren't bright enough to notice.
Not really, an affair with a pornstar might still have been relevant in the campaign to candidate Trump. But those people already knew they were voting for a man with multiple divorces, affairs and a less than low regard for women. Now though? Its just problem number 577 and the affair doesn't even matter to anyone. What matters is what happened after the affair.
Indeed. The legal issue isn't whether the President had an affair with a porn star. Cheating on your wife shortly after her having given birth to their son is not an actual crime.
Some people might consider it sinful or immoral, and an indication of the person doing the cheating is a crappy individual, but it isn't actually a crime.
The legal issue is, if campaign funds was used in the pay off agreement, to ensure the supporters of the party and the president wouldn't have to deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance.
Yes, it should have mattered to a good deal of his own party and perhaps it did, right up to the second he won the nomination from the party and all the moral issues were unceremoniously dumped overboard.
The legal issue must be close to coming to a head, with Giuliano going on Fox like that. Nevertheless, the real repercussions to Trump is what this case opens in regards to individuals blabbing and further cover ups. If he doesn't manage to kneecap himself with yet another dumb comment beforehand.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of the Trump-Stormy Daniels-Cohen nexus which doesn't mean Trump had an affair with Daniels and she was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about it?
As others have noted, that stuff is just the beginning. It's been basically undeniable since Stormy Daniel's lawyer Michael Avenatti found a legal way to make the non-disclosure deal a public document. From then the denials of an affair weren't believed by anyone, no person on earth honestly believed Cohen just paid $130k to silence Daniels about an affair that didn't happen.
Thing is, when we're just talking about the affair, it really has no political cost to Trump. Remember, this is a guy who first came to prominence in NY by trying to get himself in the gossip pages of the NY rags by contacting them himself, often pretending to be his own press agent, to give them stories about all the women he slept with. He's got five kids to three different wives, but now he runs bits in his campaign events about immigrants coming to America and 'breeding'. This doesn't create a second's pause for anyone involved, because its different when Trump does it, because he's white, rich and powerful. He should be able to do what he wants. Trump doing what he wants, saying whatever comes to mind, abusing whoever he wants, sleeping with whoever he wants, this is the fantasy that is so appealing to so many of his voters. It's how they like to pretend they could live if they were rich. That he slept with a pornstar and gave her money to make her go away isn't a Trump problem, it's essential to his 'I do what I want' brand. As for the rest of the Trump voters, well they're partisan to the point where they'd vote for zombie Bin Laden if he's the candidate the Republicans put forward - when Trump bragging about molesting women didn't turn them away, consensual extra-marital sex won't.
What matters now, I think, is the payments that were made to Daniels. There's all kinds of campaign laws those payments violated, and Trump's team have tried to move around those in such an obviously deceitful way that it is now basically impossible for them to manage a coherent defense of the payments. "Okay, the first five explanations were all knowing, willful lies, but you'v gotta believe me with this explanation" is not what any lawyer wants to take to court. I doubt that Trump's breach of these laws will impact him personally, but it will mean jail time for Cohen. Which means Mueller has something to dangle over Cohen's head, to get him to flip on a whole bunch of other stuff. It's all that stuff that really matters, because alongside Russia there is likely a whole lot of business dealings so crooked that it could finally strip away the hardcore partisan Republicans.
That's where the game is at. I suspect that's what Giuliani was trying to do with that nonsense about Trump repaying Cohen, he thought bringing the violation back on to Trump would be okay because Trump can weather it, and it would take the threat away from Cohen. But Giuliani didn't realise the payment made by Cohen was still in breach of the law even if it was a loan, so all he did was confirm Trump knew about the payment. Which ended up making Cohen's position much, much worse.
It almost make it seem like hiring lawyers based on seeing them on FOX News is a bad idea.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of the Trump-Stormy Daniels-Cohen nexus which doesn't mean Trump had an affair with Daniels and she was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about it?
Trump was concerned about Stormy Daniel's soul and place in heaven, so this was money to pay off her debts, and pay for an airline ticket to the nearest convent, so she could live out the rest of her life as a Nun and atone for her 'sins.'
Trump kept quiet about the payment so that non-Christian Americans wouldn't get upset, because they don't like Nuns or something...
In all honesty, give me a million pounds and 6 months to think about it, and I'd struggle to come up with anything to explain this away.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of the Trump-Stormy Daniels-Cohen nexus which doesn't mean Trump had an affair with Daniels and she was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about it?
Trump was concerned about Stormy Daniel's soul and place in heaven, so this was money to pay off her debts, and pay for an airline ticket to the nearest convent, so she could live out the rest of her life as a Nun and atone for her 'sins.'
Trump kept quiet about the payment so that non-Christian Americans wouldn't get upset, because they don't like Nuns or something...
In all honesty, give me a million pounds and 6 months to think about it, and I'd struggle to come up with anything to explain this away.
You have to go for something involving his ego, he spends fortunes on his ego and its the only thing he really cares about to keep it simple. So either Stormy mailed him jars of her pee or did his secret hair transplant. Boom, reason for Trump to want to hush things up while not being an affair
Kilkrazy wrote: Can anyone come up with a rational explanation of the Trump-Stormy Daniels-Cohen nexus which doesn't mean Trump had an affair with Daniels and she was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about it?
Trump was concerned about Stormy Daniel's soul and place in heaven, so this was money to pay off her debts, and pay for an airline ticket to the nearest convent, so she could live out the rest of her life as a Nun and atone for her 'sins.'
Trump kept quiet about the payment so that non-Christian Americans wouldn't get upset, because they don't like Nuns or something...
In all honesty, give me a million pounds and 6 months to think about it, and I'd struggle to come up with anything to explain this away.
You have to go for something involving his ego, he spends fortunes on his ego and its the only thing he really cares about to keep it simple. So either Stormy mailed him jars of her pee or did his secret hair transplant. Boom, reason for Trump to want to hush things up while not being an affair
Going through the list of American Presidents, Andrew Jackson regretting not hanging his vice-President and Nixon's criminality are obviously amongst some of the worst actions or attempted actions, but Trump is definitely heading for that same company.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thing is, Bush is strongly associated with the 2008 crash. And while it's far from his fault exclusively it's also pretty fair to make
The great irony is how the wealthy are cultivating their own demise. Like gun advocates but on a much bigger scale.
That's a really good point. The rich and gun owners have such strong institutional places in the system, they could carry on forever doing very nicely for themselves. But instead they push, and push, and invite a backlash that will see them lose enormously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: On the topic of shootings, schools, etc, may I suggest that perhaps the issue is neither guns nor security measures, but something else?
My grandfather brought firearms to school on a regular basis and just stacked them in the corner of the room to go plinking or rodent hunting after class. He could mail order machineguns to his door via the USPS without background checks or age requirements or NFA paperwork. His schools had no resource officers, and teachers were not armed. And yet...nobody walked through school hallways or nightclubs trying to kill as many people as possible.
What has changed in society, such that some people find that committing such acts to be acceptable recourse to their grievances?
Whether its stalking the halls of a high school with an AR15 or running people down with a rental truck in the streets, why do outliers see this course of action as viable and desireable, when in previous eras they did not? Especially when average levels of daily violence have been decreasing for decades.
I suspect that addressing that question may prove far more productive than gun bans or security measures or whatnot. That said, there is unlikely to be a simple compelling solution that fits into preexisting narratives, but if we really want to see a change, I feel thats where we should look first.
Your mistake is in assuming there is a single factor, not a combination of factors. Consider instead that the pressures that might cause shootings in the US might also exist in other developed countries, but elsewhere those pressures don't happen to exist alongside routine gun ownership and large sections of society immersed in a gun culture.
Think of it this way - when a person tells a health worker they have suicidal impulses to jump off a cliff to their death, the health worker will tell them to move away from their house on a cliff, and stop driving along the mountain road. The first and best way to prevent people dealing with those impulses is to remove the environmental factors that might trigger more instances of those impulses, and might cause them to act on them. A famous example is the Israeli army, which had a serious problem with soldier suicide. The IDF just stopped soldiers taking their guns home on weekends, and suicides dropped 40% immediately.
So now consider a situation where all the pressures of modern life and modern highschool exist, but in one country a troubled kid goes home to a house full of guns, and in another country a kid goes home to a house that's never had a gun, to a lifestyle where the kid has seen a gun maybe two or three times in his life. Which kid has triggers encouraging the fantasy of shooting up his school, and which kid doesn't? So which kid is more likely to actually do it?
Now, all of that doesn't come with a conclusion that gun bans must happen or anything like that. But given all the above, it's basically undeniable that gun proliferation is a major factor in the US's uniquely high rate of murder compared to the rest of the developed world. That's the real starting point for a conversation on this issue.
Interesting theory and while having the means available to commit suicide or murder has to factor in somehow the actual scenario you describe really doesn’t fit the majority of mass shootings. It works with Sandy Hook but doesn’t align with what happened at Columbine, Va Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando or Parkland. I don’t recall enough info about the Vegas shooter’s background to know if he fits that profile. The majority of shooters didn’t grow up in a gun owning household in the US. They decided to commit mass murder and then proceeded to acquire guns since it was the easiest path to achieving their goal. Other attacks that occurred in locales where acquiring guns would have taken more time or been more difficult led to the use of explosives instead at the Boston Marathon and the Times Square car bomb attempt. If someone’s mental health deteriorates to the point that they are determined to kill a bunch of people they’ll be able to find a way to do it because free societies will always be bulnerable to bad actors within its members.
Guns have always been readily accessible to people in the US and life has always had stressors and difficulties but mass shootings haven’t always been prevalent so clearly some aspects of our current society are contributing to people choosing to be mass murderers. Some kind of massive restriction of guns would have an impact on the ability to commit spree killings but it would do nothing to address the root cause of why people are choosing to be spree killers.
Interesting theory and while having the means available to commit suicide or murder has to factor in somehow the actual scenario you describe really doesn’t fit the majority of mass shootings. It works with Sandy Hook but doesn’t align with what happened at Columbine, Va Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando or Parkland. I don’t recall enough info about the Vegas shooter’s background to know if he fits that profile. The majority of shooters didn’t grow up in a gun owning household in the US. They decided to commit mass murder and then proceeded to acquire guns since it was the easiest path to achieving their goal. Other attacks that occurred in locales where acquiring guns would have taken more time or been more difficult led to the use of explosives instead at the Boston Marathon and the Times Square car bomb attempt. If someone’s mental health deteriorates to the point that they are determined to kill a bunch of people they’ll be able to find a way to do it because free societies will always be bulnerable to bad actors within its members.
So why doesn't it happen to the same extent in other comparable countries?
Interesting theory and while having the means available to commit suicide or murder has to factor in somehow the actual scenario you describe really doesn’t fit the majority of mass shootings. It works with Sandy Hook but doesn’t align with what happened at Columbine, Va Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando or Parkland. I don’t recall enough info about the Vegas shooter’s background to know if he fits that profile. The majority of shooters didn’t grow up in a gun owning household in the US. They decided to commit mass murder and then proceeded to acquire guns since it was the easiest path to achieving their goal. Other attacks that occurred in locales where acquiring guns would have taken more time or been more difficult led to the use of explosives instead at the Boston Marathon and the Times Square car bomb attempt. If someone’s mental health deteriorates to the point that they are determined to kill a bunch of people they’ll be able to find a way to do it because free societies will always be bulnerable to bad actors within its members.
So why doesn't it happen to the same extent in other comparable countries?
It happens in different ways. The US has more spree shootings, China has more spree killing with knives, Europe has more spree killings with trucks, both the US and WI have sporadic bombings. There are unhealthy aspects of society that are common throughout the West and there are unhealthy social conditions that are unique to specific countries like the US. Nobody has a monopoly on mental illness. When unhealthy people choose to lash out they often use the most accessible way which also dovetails into a course of action that will accomplish an additional goal of bringing them a lot of attention.
I just read an article that a kid in Texas (I think) just stabbed his friend in middle of an argument over whether or not PUBG was better than Fortnite. At this point I'm willing to say Americans are simply more violent by nature. We already have a higher rate of kids and young adults taking prescription meds that affect brain chemistry, and a higher rate of those people taking either the wrong dosage, or mixing meds that shouldn't be mixed. I had a whole lecture I compiled on it, with sources and everything, I'll try to find it when I get home.
Interesting theory and while having the means available to commit suicide or murder has to factor in somehow the actual scenario you describe really doesn’t fit the majority of mass shootings. It works with Sandy Hook but doesn’t align with what happened at Columbine, Va Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando or Parkland. I don’t recall enough info about the Vegas shooter’s background to know if he fits that profile. The majority of shooters didn’t grow up in a gun owning household in the US. They decided to commit mass murder and then proceeded to acquire guns since it was the easiest path to achieving their goal. Other attacks that occurred in locales where acquiring guns would have taken more time or been more difficult led to the use of explosives instead at the Boston Marathon and the Times Square car bomb attempt. If someone’s mental health deteriorates to the point that they are determined to kill a bunch of people they’ll be able to find a way to do it because free societies will always be bulnerable to bad actors within its members.
So why doesn't it happen to the same extent in other comparable countries?
It happens in different ways. The US has more spree shootings, China has more spree killing with knives, Europe has more spree killings with trucks, both the US and WI have sporadic bombings. There are unhealthy aspects of society that are common throughout the West and there are unhealthy social conditions that are unique to specific countries like the US. Nobody has a monopoly on mental illness. When unhealthy people choose to lash out they often use the most accessible way which also dovetails into a course of action that will accomplish an additional goal of bringing them a lot of attention.
So why does the US have a much higher murder rate than European countries if these are things that occur everywhere?
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: I just read an article that a kid in Texas (I think) just stabbed his friend in middle of an argument over whether or not PUBG was better than Fortnite. At this point I'm willing to say Americans are simply more violent by nature. We already have a higher rate of kids and young adults taking prescription meds that affect brain chemistry, and a higher rate of those people taking either the wrong dosage, or mixing meds that shouldn't be mixed. I had a whole lecture I compiled on it, with sources and everything, I'll try to find it when I get home.
There’s a big difference right here. The US allow pharmaceutical companies to directly advertise to consumers. This results in people being routinely bombarded with commercials encouraging them to self diagnose their problems and seek a doctor to demand specific medications by name that they may not even need. It’s no wonder that our country is horribly over medicated.
Interesting theory and while having the means available to commit suicide or murder has to factor in somehow the actual scenario you describe really doesn’t fit the majority of mass shootings. It works with Sandy Hook but doesn’t align with what happened at Columbine, Va Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando or Parkland. I don’t recall enough info about the Vegas shooter’s background to know if he fits that profile. The majority of shooters didn’t grow up in a gun owning household in the US. They decided to commit mass murder and then proceeded to acquire guns since it was the easiest path to achieving their goal. Other attacks that occurred in locales where acquiring guns would have taken more time or been more difficult led to the use of explosives instead at the Boston Marathon and the Times Square car bomb attempt. If someone’s mental health deteriorates to the point that they are determined to kill a bunch of people they’ll be able to find a way to do it because free societies will always be bulnerable to bad actors within its members.
So why doesn't it happen to the same extent in other comparable countries?
It happens in different ways. The US has more spree shootings, China has more spree killing with knives, Europe has more spree killings with trucks, both the US and WI have sporadic bombings. There are unhealthy aspects of society that are common throughout the West and there are unhealthy social conditions that are unique to specific countries like the US. Nobody has a monopoly on mental illness. When unhealthy people choose to lash out they often use the most accessible way which also dovetails into a course of action that will accomplish an additional goal of bringing them a lot of attention.
So why does the US have a much higher murder rate than European countries if these are things that occur everywhere?
Societal and cultural differences and easier access to weapons. Why are affluent suburbs in the US suffering higher rates of depression and suicide? Why does a Canadien decide to murder people with a rental truck?
Is there a politician of note running on a gun-control platform, is there a gun-control bill in Congress, or is there a gun-control bill before SCOTUS right now?
If there is, maybe actually talking about that specifically would actually be on-topic.
Break the law, deny that you did the thing that broke the law, then say “oops, let me pay a fine” and people who really care about this kind of thing won’t care.
Interesting theory and while having the means available to commit suicide or murder has to factor in somehow the actual scenario you describe really doesn’t fit the majority of mass shootings. It works with Sandy Hook but doesn’t align with what happened at Columbine, Va Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando or Parkland. I don’t recall enough info about the Vegas shooter’s background to know if he fits that profile. The majority of shooters didn’t grow up in a gun owning household in the US. They decided to commit mass murder and then proceeded to acquire guns since it was the easiest path to achieving their goal. Other attacks that occurred in locales where acquiring guns would have taken more time or been more difficult led to the use of explosives instead at the Boston Marathon and the Times Square car bomb attempt. If someone’s mental health deteriorates to the point that they are determined to kill a bunch of people they’ll be able to find a way to do it because free societies will always be bulnerable to bad actors within its members.
So why doesn't it happen to the same extent in other comparable countries?
Well if you want to deny easy access ang glorifying attitude as reasons there's always simple genetical inferiority as reason. Myself I prefer gun acaess and "woo guns are awzo'" attitude but each to his own
It...it's like Giuliani is intentionally trying to sink Trump...
Goes on national television, says the payment was personal...that this whole thing has only hurt the President, and Melania, personally (and soooo much), but not politically...
Then he dropped "Imagine if that came out of October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton?"
d-usa wrote: Break the law, deny that you did the thing that broke the law, then say “oops, let me pay a fine” and people who really care about this kind of thing won’t care.
Yeah... pretty much.
It boils down to, if the current argument sticks (ha!), that Cohen's monthly retainer paid by Trump was used to "pay back" the loan Cohen had to acquire for the Stormy NDA agreement constitutes as a political contribution.
It obviously does as this occurred during the election season (I think after the 'they let you grab their pussy' story). So it need to be reported as a contribution.
Your mistake is in assuming there is a single factor, not a combination of factors.
Oh absolutely there are a wide array of factors as opposed to any single thing, but we broadly seem to be missing that in the larger sociopolitical conversation, or, when they are addressed, it seems to be as a deflection rather than an attempt to drill down to any real fundamental issues. Fundamentally, the US has always had a wealth of weapons available, but mass attacks, regardless of what kind of weapon being used, be it gun or bomb or truck, appears to be on the rise, while overall violence levels drop and fewer and fewer people die from all sources of violence, including guns. We see fringe elements in society becoming increasingly accepting of violence at a time when more common criminal and interpersonal violence is much lower than in previous decades, the US isnt alone there (even if it is the most affected), and nobody seems to have a great answer on that.
I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.
Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.
It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.
d-usa wrote: Break the law, deny that you did the thing that broke the law, then say “oops, let me pay a fine” and people who really care about this kind of thing won’t care.
Yeah... pretty much.
It boils down to, if the current argument sticks (ha!), that Cohen's monthly retainer paid by Trump was used to "pay back" the loan Cohen had to acquire for the Stormy NDA agreement constitutes as a political contribution.
It obviously does as this occurred during the election season (I think after the 'they let you grab their pussy' story). So it need to be reported as a contribution.
That's my read at least...
Which is almost irrelevant unfortunately. Election law violation s are almost toothless.
Da Boss wrote: I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.
Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.
It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.
It was already obviously completely hollow back in the 90s. Newt Gingrich trying to claim the moral high ground about an extra marital affair? That was hypocritical and absurd while it was happening.
Da Boss wrote: I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.
Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.
It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.
Agreed. Turns out Clinton's "basket of deplorables" was spot-on.
d-usa wrote: Break the law, deny that you did the thing that broke the law, then say “oops, let me pay a fine” and people who really care about this kind of thing won’t care.
Yeah... pretty much.
It boils down to, if the current argument sticks (ha!), that Cohen's monthly retainer paid by Trump was used to "pay back" the loan Cohen had to acquire for the Stormy NDA agreement constitutes as a political contribution.
It obviously does as this occurred during the election season (I think after the 'they let you grab their pussy' story). So it need to be reported as a contribution.
That's my read at least...
Which is almost irrelevant unfortunately. Election law violation s are almost toothless.
I think you're right...
It's almost a carbon copy of the John Edward affair... where the DOJ *did* take him to court and lost their asses off...
Da Boss wrote: I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.
Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.
It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.
Agreed. Turns out Clinton's "basket of deplorables" was spot-on.
While I would love to add something, going into this direction will only result in hostile denial and the inevitable thread lock.
Da Boss wrote: I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.
Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.
It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.
Agreed. Turns out Clinton's "basket of deplorables" was spot-on.
While I would love to add something, going into this direction will only result in hostile denial and the inevitable thread lock.
I'm not 100% sure on the supporter angle, but I suppose I just expect better of public representatives. I know it's fashionable to be apocalyptically cynical about them, but I think they should be held to a higher standard. As to the supporters, well, sure. There's racists and misogynists of various stripes and levels of intensity, but there's also a lot of them that just disbelieve anything that doesn't fit what they already think and who get their information from utterly cynically biased sources. None of us are immune to that. So I'm angry about people like that, but I don't think politicians throwing language like that around is good in the general case. In specific cases it is more appropriate, but I think it wasn't really respectable to do that in the election. Somewhat similar to Romney's 48% gaffe.
feeder wrote: Trump now remembers paying Daniels, but still denies affair. He was being shaken down.
Sauce
Trump is such a good negotiator (who never settles out of court, remember) that it only cost him $130k to pay for someone to not say something that didn't happen happened.
Vaktathi wrote: It...it's like Giuliani is intentionally trying to sink Trump...
All I know is that the addition of Guiliani to this...everything...is like throwing gasoline on a fire. Things are going to get even weirder, wronger and more entertaining now.
It really makes me wonder if this is just taking advantage of the high lawyer turnover/complete lack of vetting for anyone in the admin. to place someone on the legal team specifically to sink Trump.
Maybe that should be in the conspiracy theories thread instead?
Vaktathi wrote: It...it's like Giuliani is intentionally trying to sink Trump...
All I know is that the addition of Guiliani to this...everything...is like throwing gasoline on a fire. Things are going to get even weirder, wronger and more entertaining now.
Indeed, though I'd pass in the entertainment for the peace of mind that someone competent is running things
But speaking of weirder, wronger, and more entertaining, now it is being reported that calls between Cohen and the WH were intercepted as part of taps put in Cohen's phone, and that Trump still personally called Cohen even after the raid before Giuliani told him that was really dumb.
Da Boss wrote: I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.
Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.
It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.
Honestly, I think the Dave Chappelle bit on Clinton is spot on (in short, he makes a long joke saying basically "of course he was gonna lie, his wife is right there!!")
The truly sad thing (in my mind) is the friends that I have on that side of the aisle defending trump by saying "ohh, trump did this 11 years ago, that's WAAAAAAAAAAY different than Clinton" and It's not just my friends saying this, I see it from other strangers on various social media as well.
feeder wrote: Trump now remembers paying Daniels, but still denies affair. He was being shaken down.
Sauce
Trump is such a good negotiator (who never settles out of court, remember) that it only cost him $130k to pay for someone to not say something that didn't happen happened.
Indeed. The best deal in the history of deals, maybe ever.
Da Boss wrote: I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.
Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.
It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.
Agreed. Turns out Clinton's "basket of deplorables" was spot-on.
While I would love to add something, going into this direction will only result in hostile denial and the inevitable thread lock.
I'm not 100% sure on the supporter angle, but I suppose I just expect better of public representatives. I know it's fashionable to be apocalyptically cynical about them, but I think they should be held to a higher standard. As to the supporters, well, sure. There's racists and misogynists of various stripes and levels of intensity, but there's also a lot of them that just disbelieve anything that doesn't fit what they already think and who get their information from utterly cynically biased sources. None of us are immune to that. So I'm angry about people like that, but I don't think politicians throwing language like that around is good in the general case. In specific cases it is more appropriate, but I think it wasn't really respectable to do that in the election. Somewhat similar to Romney's 48% gaffe.
There are differences between a Trumpalous supporter vs. people voting "not Hillary".
The fact that the latter and especially the former would be a bit defensive over the vote is understandable.
But, in either case, one can say that "the affair is yucky"... and still support el Trumpo. The obvious "I told you so" glee over the affair, is also yucky.
So, all these outlandish (non-illegal) things that Trump deservedly gets dinged for... many are not surprising to those el Trumpo voters. If it did, that Access Hollywood tape would've sinked him for good.
And weirdly, this intense focus on shaming Trump's voters instead of figuring out why the GOP party was so ripe for takeover is frankly, bizarre. Seems like the parties, media and the old guard is doomed to repeat this madness.
It is fair to talk about the same people who criticized Hillary for standing by Bill who nevertheless don’t criticize Trump for his affairs and paying people off to shut them up and then lying about it.
Da Boss wrote: I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.
Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.
It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.
Agreed. Turns out Clinton's "basket of deplorables" was spot-on.
While I would love to add something, going into this direction will only result in hostile denial and the inevitable thread lock.
I'm not 100% sure on the supporter angle, but I suppose I just expect better of public representatives. I know it's fashionable to be apocalyptically cynical about them, but I think they should be held to a higher standard. As to the supporters, well, sure. There's racists and misogynists of various stripes and levels of intensity, but there's also a lot of them that just disbelieve anything that doesn't fit what they already think and who get their information from utterly cynically biased sources. None of us are immune to that. So I'm angry about people like that, but I don't think politicians throwing language like that around is good in the general case. In specific cases it is more appropriate, but I think it wasn't really respectable to do that in the election. Somewhat similar to Romney's 48% gaffe.
There are differences between a Trumpalous supporter vs. people voting "not Hillary".
The fact that the latter and especially the former would be a bit defensive over the vote is understandable.
But, in either case, one can say that "the affair is yucky"... and still support el Trumpo. The obvious "I told you so" glee over the affair, is also yucky.
So, all these outlandish (non-illegal) things that Trump deservedly gets dinged for... many are not surprising to those el Trumpo voters. If it did, that Access Hollywood tape would've sinked him for good.
And weirdly, this intense focus on shaming Trump's voters instead of figuring out why the GOP party was so ripe for takeover is frankly, bizarre. Seems like the parties, media and the old guard is doomed to repeat this madness.
Probably because most people, especially after trumps election, realize that the GOP is dead and at this point we are waiting for the stinking corpse to explode
whembly wrote: And weirdly, this intense focus on shaming Trump's voters instead of figuring out why the GOP party was so ripe for takeover is frankly, bizarre. Seems like the parties, media and the old guard is doomed to repeat this madness.
There has been lots of debate. My takeaway from all of that debate is that Trump is the end result of the part 20-ish years of the GOP eschewing workable policy in favour of lies, whataboutism and victimhood.
d-usa wrote: It is fair to talk about the same people who criticized Hillary for standing by Bill who nevertheless don’t criticize Trump for his affairs and paying people off to shut them up and then lying about it.
Of course its fair.
I think when we all look back at this ordeal... we can only shake our heads at how we've all lost our minds... eh?
whembly wrote: And weirdly, this intense focus on shaming Trump's voters instead of figuring out why the GOP party was so ripe for takeover is frankly, bizarre. Seems like the parties, media and the old guard is doomed to repeat this madness.
There has been lots of debate. My takeaway from all of that debate is that Trump is the end result of the part 20-ish years of the GOP eschewing workable policy in favour of lies, whataboutism and victimhood.
Here’s the thing, its primarily about 2 things regarding the GOP voters...
The Democrats and complicit media (but I repeat myself ) have done and will blatantly hammer every republican president. If you think they wouldn’t give a President Fiorina the Palin treatment or President Romney/Rubio/Cruz the Dubya treatment, you haven’t been paying attention. And ever since they painted Romney as a immoral, misogynist, Nazi, it became obvious that’s the only way any agenda is going to even get off the ground is to elect some outsider who not only mind the political mud slinging... but, revels in it.
The GOP political elite themselves only have themselves to blame why Trump got the nomination, because a plurality of the GOP primary voters didn't want the same sort of empty GOP suits.
Then, the democrats nominated Hillary Clinton.
This is why Trump happened, and why this absolutely crazy stuff that would normally doom any other candidate... is ineffective to his base (see my MO governor...he's going down, but if it were Trump, his voters would shrug). He was elected with everyone knowing who the man is, so all this crap is baked in the cake. It’s all already been revealed, and deemed immaterial to the mission.
These are the rules that was imposed on us. You can hate the game, but if you hate the player you aren’t going to win...because in this case, the low brow gak isn't going to bring down Trump, because he'll drag every one of us with him.
Trump's weakness isn't his cad behaviors or even the Russian Collusion (boy has that sure dropped of the map)... but, the policies he's pushing. You can make a better argument against the taxs cut (just not Pelosi's "crumbs" argument...jeez)...and can even make the case that he's seriously stacking the judicial system with his picks. But, to make your case 24/7 that it's Stormey Daniels or some playboy playmate is going to get Trump impeached and removed from office??
Expect a lot of eye-rolling from the crowd and the Trumpalous high-fiving that "my President banged playmates and pornstars"....
The reason trump happened is because the GOP moved away from actually bothering to have any policies beyond "democrats bad!". If the GOP hadn't spent years teaching their base that governance just mean empty words and opposing anything the dems were doing, Trump would have been butchered in the primary. But the GOP did do that and Trump realised that actual policy positions are a weakness in the GOP, so he just blathered on with empty rhetoric and racist dog whistles to win the nomination.
I don't expect it will get him impeached. It's just depressing and tawdry and beneath contempt. The US used to be a serious country, and stuff like this makes you guys an international punchline. That's sad, and scary.
If “the news are mean to the GOP” is the reason for Trump, then how does that square with the increased negative coverage of Hillary (and of Obama before her)?
We can repeat that lie every time, and we can refute it every time. But it will continue to be told.
The reason trump happened is because the GOP moved away from actually bothering to have any policies beyond "democrats bad!".
And then GOP voters voted for him.
The GOP is responsible for trump, 100%.
Exactly. It's not the Democrats' fault Cruz lost to Trump. And Rubio lost to him. And Jeb. And all the others that went up against him in the primaries. Trump was picked by the GOP voters.
The reason trump happened is because the GOP moved away from actually bothering to have any policies beyond "democrats bad!".
And then GOP voters voted for him.
The GOP is responsible for trump, 100%.
Trump is a sign that our system needs to progress. It's been the same old faces pulling the same old crap for decades, with little movement forward due to one party or another not playing ball. Trump came out of left field with the vocabulary and behavior that was completely different than any other option, and his even his slogan "Make America Great Again". He tried to hearken back to the good old days where our government wasn't as dysfunctional as it was, and spat venom at everyone, which also set him apart. Its honestly no wonder her won, but its also a message. A warning that our system is broken, and we as the American people need to get our government working for us again, and move forward with dignity and respect, regardless of party.
I partly blame democrats for nominating Clinton. I'm fully convinced anyone else, yes even Bernie Sanders (especially Biden), would've done better than Clinton.
The reason trump happened is because the GOP moved away from actually bothering to have any policies beyond "democrats bad!". If the GOP hadn't spent years teaching their base that governance just mean empty words and opposing anything the dems were doing, Trump would have been butchered in the primary. But the GOP did do that and Trump realised that actual policy positions are a weakness in the GOP, so he just blathered on with empty rhetoric and racist dog whistles to win the nomination.
Trump was literally in the right time/place for this where an outsider could find some success.
That was primarily caused by the GOP establishments giving their voters the middle-finger.
And then GOP voters voted for him.
The GOP is responsible for trump, 100%.
Well...yeah... the GOP will suffer the consequences to Democrat's gain. But, don't be blind to the fact that Trump had such a POOR opposition candidate. Trump/GOP voters didn't do that... that was all on Democrats.
d-usa wrote: If “the news are mean to the GOP” is the reason for Trump, then how does that square with the increased negative coverage of Hillary (and of Obama before her)?
We can repeat that lie every time, and we can refute it every time. But it will continue to be told.
Hillary? Yes...that's correct.
But, holy gak Obama? Every politician would love to receive the exact same treatment he got.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I've never gotten a good answer as to when the 'great America' they are referring to was. It's kinda funny to watch people squirm when you ask.
Maybe we ought to ask what Bill Clinton meant when he used that phrase (I think during '08 HRC primary??).
whembly wrote: And weirdly, this intense focus on shaming Trump's voters instead of figuring out why the GOP party was so ripe for takeover is frankly, bizarre. Seems like the parties, media and the old guard is doomed to repeat this madness.
There has been lots of debate. My takeaway from all of that debate is that Trump is the end result of the part 20-ish years of the GOP eschewing workable policy in favour of lies, whataboutism and victimhood.
The reason trump happened is because the GOP moved away from actually bothering to have any policies beyond "democrats bad!".
And then GOP voters voted for him.
The GOP is responsible for trump, 100%.
Trump is a sign that our system needs to progress. It's been the same old faces pulling the same old crap for decades, with little movement forward due to one party or another not playing ball. Trump came out of left field with the vocabulary and behavior that was completely different than any other option, and his even his slogan "Make America Great Again". He tried to hearken back to the good old days where our government wasn't as dysfunctional as it was,and spat venom at everyone, which also set him apart. Its honestly no wonder her won, but its also a message. A warning that our system is broken, and we as the American people need to get our government working for us again, and move forward with dignity and respect, regardless of party.
Good one man, the good old days of old racist white men in charge, the 19th century.
whembly wrote: And weirdly, this intense focus on shaming Trump's voters instead of figuring out why the GOP party was so ripe for takeover is frankly, bizarre. Seems like the parties, media and the old guard is doomed to repeat this madness.
There has been lots of debate. My takeaway from all of that debate is that Trump is the end result of the part 20-ish years of the GOP eschewing workable policy in favour of lies, whataboutism and victimhood.
...says...the Canadian.
Does my Canadian-ness mean I cannot read and interpret American debates?
I partly blame democrats for nominating Clinton. I'm fully convinced anyone else, yes even Bernie Sanders (especially Biden), would've done better than Clinton.
Sanders, the guy who couldn't even beat Clinton and whose voters would be invisible once it snowed? The same type of voters that overwhelmingly picked Trump?
whembly wrote: And weirdly, this intense focus on shaming Trump's voters instead of figuring out why the GOP party was so ripe for takeover is frankly, bizarre. Seems like the parties, media and the old guard is doomed to repeat this madness.
There has been lots of debate. My takeaway from all of that debate is that Trump is the end result of the part 20-ish years of the GOP eschewing workable policy in favour of lies, whataboutism and victimhood.
...says...the Canadian.
When the trend is apparent to foreigners it's a pretty dam obvious trend.
whembly wrote: And weirdly, this intense focus on shaming Trump's voters instead of figuring out why the GOP party was so ripe for takeover is frankly, bizarre. Seems like the parties, media and the old guard is doomed to repeat this madness.
There has been lots of debate. My takeaway from all of that debate is that Trump is the end result of the part 20-ish years of the GOP eschewing workable policy in favour of lies, whataboutism and victimhood.
...says...the Canadian.
Does my Canadian-ness mean I cannot read and interpret American debates?
it means your viewpoint us spoiled by your socialist maple tree hugging ways.
whembly wrote: And weirdly, this intense focus on shaming Trump's voters instead of figuring out why the GOP party was so ripe for takeover is frankly, bizarre. Seems like the parties, media and the old guard is doomed to repeat this madness.
There has been lots of debate. My takeaway from all of that debate is that Trump is the end result of the part 20-ish years of the GOP eschewing workable policy in favour of lies, whataboutism and victimhood.
...says...the Canadian.
Does my Canadian-ness mean I cannot read and interpret American debates?
it means your viewpoint us spoiled by your socialist maple tree hugging ways.
First of all, we tap maple trees, not hug them.
Second,democratic socialist or not, I can recognize lies and whataboutism and crying victimhood when I see it.
Regarding the statements made by Rudy Giuliani and tweets by President Trump;
Are we supposed to believe that the shameless self-proclaimed tough-guy with a notorious hard-on for litigation, got buffaloed into paying off a porn star for silence on an affair that didn't actually happen?
The GOP really needs to have some introspection and take some personal responsibility. While democrats did underestimate the mass hatred of Hillary Clinton, GOP chose Trump. They then voted for him. And we all have to live with this.
So please, stop blaming Hillary or the democrats for the GOP's actions. The GOP promoted the Bush Tax cuts while we were in Iraq and Afghanistan. The GOP chose to be obstructionist during Obama presidency. The GOP chose to block the nomination of Obama's Supreme Court justice. And they fell in line behind Trump and got the tax cuts and SCOTUS they wanted.
Trump is a direct result of the GOP'S playbook of feelings are more important than facts. They need to own it.
Steelmage99 wrote: Regarding the statements made by Rudy Giuliani and tweets by President Trump;
Are we supposed to believe that the shameless self-proclaimed tough-guy with a notorious hard-on for litigation, got buffaloed into paying off a porn star for silence on an affair that didn't actually happen?
Yeah......right.
From the guy who "never settles" no less, and of course, it was all personal/private, not related in any way to Trump's ongoing political campaign.
That is in fact the line they are attempting to roll with.
AdeptSister wrote: The GOP really needs to have some introspection and take some personal responsibility. While democrats did underestimate the mass hatred of Hillary Clinton, GOP chose Trump. They then voted for him. And we all have to live with this.
So please, stop blaming Hillary or the democrats for the GOP's actions. The GOP promoted the Bush Tax cuts while we were in Iraq and Afghanistan. The GOP chose to be obstructionist during Obama presidency. The GOP chose to block the nomination of Obama's Supreme Court justice. And they fell in line behind Trump and got the tax cuts and SCOTUS they wanted.
Trump is a direct result of the GOP'S playbook of feelings are more important than facts. They need to own it.
If Democrats really didn’t want Trump to win they should have shown up and voted for Clinton. If Democrats has turned out for Hillary the way they turned out for Obama in 2012 Trump wouldn’t be POTUS. With Obama’s legacy on the line and Trump as the opposing candidate Democrats chose not to vote for Hillary and lost states like Wisconsin and Ohio. Trump’ vote total was in line with McCain’s and Romney’s, the GOPs “maverick” and the governor of Massachusetts and proponent of Romneycare. That’s pretty clear evidence that Republican voters care a lot more about the (R) next to a candidates name than any degree of ideological purity or party platform adherence.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Trump is a sign that our system needs to progress. It's been the same old faces pulling the same old crap for decades, with little movement forward due to one party or another not playing ball. Trump came out of left field with the vocabulary and behavior that was completely different than any other option, and his even his slogan "Make America Great Again". He tried to hearken back to the good old days where our government wasn't as dysfunctional as it was, and spat venom at everyone, which also set him apart. Its honestly no wonder her won, but its also a message. A warning that our system is broken, and we as the American people need to get our government working for us again, and move forward with dignity and respect, regardless of party.
I think, without any hyperbole, that the 2020 election (assuming Trump is still president at that point) will be one of the most interesting and important points in American history, and maybe tell us a lot about the state of democracy as a concept. I hope that in the long-term this will be a wake-up call and a good thing, but it's entirely possible that the voters will just go deeper into the rabbit hole, and re-elect Trump because of willful blindness, media bubbles and partisan politics that are so ingrained that they'd vote for a Megatron / Cobra Commander running pair.
Whenever they come along, I wouldn't be surprised if the next president's first public statement is "Okay....let's just pretend all that never happened,okay?" and everyone just nods.
Oooo-kay, I have an extremely hesitant question, and to preface this I AM a trump voter. Granted not at first, but I was when it was versus Clinton, or the other democrats even.
All I hear about on the news these days, more than any other story, is the latest allegation and investigation against Trump. But frankly, I'm at the point of hearing this that I'm wondering: What should we be so afraid of? And that's a serious question, honestly. I want to know out of curiosity what his opposition knows that I don't; Suppose we drop the allegations and abandon the investigations, what will he do that I should be worried about?
Republican leader Paul Ryan has reversed his decision to have an official chaplain resign amid a bipartisan uproar.
Shortly after House of Representatives chaplain Patrick Conroy rescinded his resignation, defying Mr Ryan and suggesting his ouster was politically motivated, Mr Ryan relented.
“I have accepted Father Conroy’s letter and deed that he will remain in his position as Chaplain of the House”, Mr Ryan said in a statement, adding that his initial move to have Mr Conroy resign was made “to ensure that the House has the kind of pastoral services the it deserves”.
In a two-page letter to Mr Ryan released earlier in the day, Mr Conroy said he had not heard from the Republican leader until Mr Ryan’s chief of staff approached him last month and asked him to resign. Mr Conroy said he had not committed any offences that could merit his being pushed out.
“I have never been disciplined, nor reprimanded, nor have I ever heard a complaint about my ministry during my time as House chaplain”, Mr Conroy wrote. Instead, Mr Conroy suggested, the decision may have been related to “my November prayer” - an apparent reference to a speech in which he issued a plea for fairness as Congress was debating a major tax overhaul. The measure was a priority for Mr Ryan, who has advocated tax cuts throughout his political career
“May [legislators’] efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans”, he said in the November 2017 speech.
Mr Ryan’s decision to ask for Mr Conroy’s resignation stoked controversy, with legislators from both parties questioning the move and signing onto a letter demanding more information. A letter from more than 100 members of the House warned of the “politicisation of the process for hiring and dismissing a House chaplain” and said pointed to “questions of religious bias”.
In a prior interview with the Independent, Virginia Democrat Gerry Connolly said some members suspected Mr Conroy was being punished for his political beliefs
“There is a view that Mr Ryan did not want a chaplain who talked about social justice, and he found a way to rid him of ‘this troublesome priest’”, Mr Connolly said.
Mr Ryan denied at an event in Milwaukee last week that his decision to ask for Mr Conroy's resignation was “about politics or prayers”.
“A number of our members felt like the pastoral services were not being adequately served, or offered”, Mr Ryan said
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lazzamore wrote: Oooo-kay, I have an extremely hesitant question, and to preface this I AM a trump voter. Granted not at first, but I was when it was versus Clinton, or the other democrats even.
All I hear about on the news these days, more than any other story, is the latest allegation and investigation against Trump. But frankly, I'm at the point of hearing this that I'm wondering: What should we be so afraid of? And that's a serious question, honestly. I want to know out of curiosity what his opposition knows that I don't; Suppose we drop the allegations and abandon the investigations, what will he do that I should be worried about?
The fact that a sitting president has massive debts owed to Russian political figures that he did not disclose? Honestly it is all pretty simple stuff that has been laid out since the start
Screw over the EPA, mess up net neutrality, screw over US trade because he doesn't understand the basics of how trade works (making everyday stuff more expensive for you), digging a deeper hole for dead industries that aren't coming back, for a start.
Kudos for asking in good faith though, that's a good place to start from.
Lazzamore wrote: Oooo-kay, I have an extremely hesitant question, and to preface this I AM a trump voter. Granted not at first, but I was when it was versus Clinton, or the other democrats even.
All I hear about on the news these days, more than any other story, is the latest allegation and investigation against Trump. But frankly, I'm at the point of hearing this that I'm wondering: What should we be so afraid of? And that's a serious question, honestly. I want to know out of curiosity what his opposition knows that I don't; Suppose we drop the allegations and abandon the investigations, what will he do that I should be worried about?
Mostly the fact that a morally reprehensible idiot representing the "values voters" and a crew of people that have no idea what they are doing are appearing to look to intentionally run half the federal government into the ground (State dept, Consumer protection bureau, EPA, education, etc) seemingly "just to watch it burn", while other nations around the world talk of the USA's retreat from global leadership, abandoning carefully crafted agreements that allies and partners are not going to be interested in renegotiating, and a domestic economic policy that looks set to rediscover 2008 in the worst way, just to name a few, in top of Trump looking to be the choice of Russia.
When you are name people like Perry to head departments they wanted to get rid of and couldnt even name when asked, youre not out for good government. When the head of the CFPB is actively trying to kill it and is talking to bankers about how to sidestep consumer protections, yourr not serving the public good.
TL;DR, incompetent, inept and corrupt people are being out into positions of power for purely ideological or personal reasons, and they are either completely ineffective in their roles, or are actively looking to harm those roles. The number of people who have lost their jobs so far in this administration speaks volumes.
AdeptSister wrote: The GOP really needs to have some introspection and take some personal responsibility. While democrats did underestimate the mass hatred of Hillary Clinton, GOP chose Trump. They then voted for him. And we all have to live with this.
So please, stop blaming Hillary or the democrats for the GOP's actions. The GOP promoted the Bush Tax cuts while we were in Iraq and Afghanistan. The GOP chose to be obstructionist during Obama presidency. The GOP chose to block the nomination of Obama's Supreme Court justice. And they fell in line behind Trump and got the tax cuts and SCOTUS they wanted.
Trump is a direct result of the GOP'S playbook of feelings are more important than facts. They need to own it.
If Democrats really didn’t want Trump to win they should have shown up and voted for Clinton. If Democrats has turned out for Hillary the way they turned out for Obama in 2012 Trump wouldn’t be POTUS. With Obama’s legacy on the line and Trump as the opposing candidate Democrats chose not to vote for Hillary and lost states like Wisconsin and Ohio. Trump’ vote total was in line with McCain’s and Romney’s, the GOPs “maverick” and the governor of Massachusetts and proponent of Romneycare. That’s pretty clear evidence that Republican voters care a lot more about the (R) next to a candidates name than any degree of ideological purity or party platform adherence.
You are right. The Democrats did not show up. And we will see in the Mid-Terms if that will change. But I fear that Democratic voters will now learn the lesson that (D) next to the candidate's will matter more than anything else... We are reaching the point that being moderate will be conflated with being a collaborator.
Lazzamore wrote: Oooo-kay, I have an extremely hesitant question, and to preface this I AM a trump voter. Granted not at first, but I was when it was versus Clinton, or the other democrats even.
All I hear about on the news these days, more than any other story, is the latest allegation and investigation against Trump. But frankly, I'm at the point of hearing this that I'm wondering: What should we be so afraid of? And that's a serious question, honestly. I want to know out of curiosity what his opposition knows that I don't; Suppose we drop the allegations and abandon the investigations, what will he do that I should be worried about?
Wait, why are we giving him a free pass on his campaign potentially colluding with a foreign government to interfere in our elections, campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice and so on? Why is handwaving over all that the starting point for this debate? Because before we have that conversation, I want to know why you arbitrarily decided to start with ignoring all of the things that got us here.
Lazzamore wrote: , what will he do that I should be worried about?
What *will* he do? God only knows, and that's the problem.
I don't intend this as an insult, but Trump is an insecure narcissist who lashes out violently and unpredictably at anything he perceives as a threat to him, personally. I've met him. This is not a stereotype of him, it's actually true. The potential for disaster with him is staggering, if he takes something the wrong way.
Imagine the short tempered incompetent boss who's always yelling at the secretary, berating the chauffeur, and who had no actual interest in the job in the first place, but ran because the Republican party snubbed him in as previous election.
Now imagine him running the most powerful nation in the free world.
Prestor Jon wrote: Interesting theory and while having the means available to commit suicide or murder has to factor in somehow the actual scenario you describe really doesn’t fit the majority of mass shootings. It works with Sandy Hook but doesn’t align with what happened at Columbine, Va Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando or Parkland. I don’t recall enough info about the Vegas shooter’s background to know if he fits that profile. The majority of shooters didn’t grow up in a gun owning household in the US. They decided to commit mass murder and then proceeded to acquire guns since it was the easiest path to achieving their goal. Other attacks that occurred in locales where acquiring guns would have taken more time or been more difficult led to the use of explosives instead at the Boston Marathon and the Times Square car bomb attempt. If someone’s mental health deteriorates to the point that they are determined to kill a bunch of people they’ll be able to find a way to do it because free societies will always be bulnerable to bad actors within its members.
Spree killing isn't a decision that's made one day, after which there's a methodical, planned series of steps all moving towards a final goal. The fantasy develops, and small steps are taken to maintain the fantasy, and those steps make further steps more likely, but not certain. A significant roadblock doesn't stop anyone moving past that step, but it does increase the chance of each person stopping their descent.
Think of it like this - in the US a guy going through that descent will be able to access a decent sized collection of guns without serious difficulty. In contrast, in Australia he'll have to fill out a ton of forms explaining why he wants the guns, which will be reviewed by authorities and possibly draw police attention to him. As a result the American is a lot more likely to take that step, and so end up surrounded by guns, and now have a financial commitment to the fantasy and have the guns there around him, acting as a trigger.
Guns have always been readily accessible to people in the US and life has always had stressors and difficulties but mass shootings haven’t always been prevalent so clearly some aspects of our current society are contributing to people choosing to be mass murderers. Some kind of massive restriction of guns would have an impact on the ability to commit spree killings but it would do nothing to address the root cause of why people are choosing to be spree killers.
All true, and honestly I don't think gun laws should be driven by spree killings anyway, as they are a very small portion of gun deaths. I just want people to recognise that gun proliferation is directly connected to shootings and from there to the murder rate. What happens from there is complicated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: I just read an article that a kid in Texas (I think) just stabbed his friend in middle of an argument over whether or not PUBG was better than Fortnite. At this point I'm willing to say Americans are simply more violent by nature. We already have a higher rate of kids and young adults taking prescription meds that affect brain chemistry, and a higher rate of those people taking either the wrong dosage, or mixing meds that shouldn't be mixed. I had a whole lecture I compiled on it, with sources and everything, I'll try to find it when I get home.
The US has a lower rate of assault than many other developed countries. The US is lower than France, Australia, Germany, Belgium and many others. England & Wales has almost three times the rate of assault as the US.
So Americans aren't more violent by nature, they're actually a little less violent than average. It's just that when assaults do happen it's more likely that there's a gun involved, which makes the event a lot more likely to end in a death.
No, all they have to do is file an amended FEC form and pay a fine.
Real embarrassing though...
Where do you get this stuff?
The structure described by Giuliani is the exact same structure used by Dennis Hastert. Hastert didn't just amend a form and pay a fine, he went to fething prison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Oh absolutely there are a wide array of factors as opposed to any single thing, but we broadly seem to be missing that in the larger sociopolitical conversation, or, when they are addressed, it seems to be as a deflection rather than an attempt to drill down to any real fundamental issues. Fundamentally, the US has always had a wealth of weapons available, but mass attacks, regardless of what kind of weapon being used, be it gun or bomb or truck, appears to be on the rise, while overall violence levels drop and fewer and fewer people die from all sources of violence, including guns. We see fringe elements in society becoming increasingly accepting of violence at a time when more common criminal and interpersonal violence is much lower than in previous decades, the US isnt alone there (even if it is the most affected), and nobody seems to have a great answer on that.
The rate of shooting hasn't dropped that much, its modest long term decline is pretty much in-line with the overall drop in crime. The more significant drop in deaths is mostly due to hospital systems being much better at saving people.
What we're seeing, basically, is two elements. One is an overall improvement in society, as education, wealth, improved policing and a whole bunch of other factors slowly decrease anti-social behaviour of all types. This is a trend we're seeing across the developed world. The second element is the US having a uniquely high rate of murder, due to gun proliferation. The existence of one of those factors shouldn't be used to deny the existence of the other.
It's almost a carbon copy of the John Edward affair... where the DOJ *did* take him to court and lost their asses off...
Wha? They got mistrial results, as they were unable to get all 12 jurors to convict. They opted not to prosecute again, probably because Edwards career was now in the trash.
Cosby got a mistrial the first time around as well. If that meant the state 'lost their assess off', then how did they get the convictions the second time?
Also... Hastert. fething prison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: [But speaking of weirder, wronger, and more entertaining, now it is being reported that calls between Cohen and the WH were intercepted as part of taps put in Cohen's phone, and that Trump still personally called Cohen even after the raid before Giuliani told him that was really dumb.
I believe it isn't a tap, but a warrant securing all calls to and from Cohen. So they can't hear what's been said, but can see who was talking to whom, when and for how long.
It's also worth nothing that the method Trump used to pay Cohen while obscuring the payments is potentially a criminal banking violation in and of itself - structuring. Oops, got beaten to this.
I don't understand how Trump manages to continually find and harness people who are so relentlessly clownshoes, like Giuliani. I mean statistically you'd except to see a few more competent people, you know? Luck of the draw?
whembly wrote: And weirdly, this intense focus on shaming Trump's voters instead of figuring out why the GOP party was so ripe for takeover is frankly, bizarre. Seems like the parties, media and the old guard is doomed to repeat this madness.
The GOP was 'ripe for takeover' because of the voters. It happened when a guy stood on a national stage, bragged about his genitals, abused a prisoner of war, mocked a disabled reporter etc, and Republican voters decided that's who they wanted. And that propelled him to the presidency when the vast majority of Republicans decided that despite that man being not just the worst presidential candidate in living memory, but also one of the worst people in the country, they just couldn't possibly imagine not voting Republican.
The GOP was ripe for takeover because its base of voters have frankly horrible political values and no policy knowledge at all. And this matters because the only way the Republican party is going to get better is if something happens to start making the voters find just a basic level of political decency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If “the news are mean to the GOP” is the reason for Trump, then how does that square with the increased negative coverage of Hillary (and of Obama before her)?
Yep, repeated studies have found Clinton's coverage had a much bigger share of negative coverage than any other candidate. But what do facts matter?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: See, down here we give it a hug, and make dinner and a movie, before we tap it.
And afterwards you give it $130,000 to never talk about what happened.
Ouze wrote: I don't understand how Trump manages to continually find and harness people who are so relentlessly clownshoes, like Giuliani. I mean statistically you'd except to see a few more competent people, you know? Luck of the draw?
Competent people give competent advice, which Trump frequently does not want to year. Resignation or firing ensues. Also, what kind of non-delusional manager or adviser wants a position in the White House right now? It has a pretty good track record of ruining people for no benefit at this point.
Does everyone remember that stupid, stupid 'Jade Helm' nonsense? It was a military exercise across several states that conspiracy theorists believed was secretly some kind of plan to start nabbing political opponents, or something. It was dumb, but it got enough interest from the crazies that Texan Governor Greg Abbott threw threw them a bone and ended up ordering the the National Guard to monitor the parts of the operation that took place in Texas. Michael Hayden, former CIA director, says that idiocy wasn't just a product of far right conspiracy nutters, a large part of the conspiracy was driven by Russian bots, and getting that response out of Abbott convinced the Russians their operations could impact American politics.
Prestor Jon wrote: If Democrats really didn’t want Trump to win they should have shown up and voted for Clinton. If Democrats has turned out for Hillary the way they turned out for Obama in 2012 Trump wouldn’t be POTUS. With Obama’s legacy on the line and Trump as the opposing candidate Democrats chose not to vote for Hillary and lost states like Wisconsin and Ohio. Trump’ vote total was in line with McCain’s and Romney’s, the GOPs “maverick” and the governor of Massachusetts and proponent of Romneycare. That’s pretty clear evidence that Republican voters care a lot more about the (R) next to a candidates name than any degree of ideological purity or party platform adherence.
That's a hell of a lot of talk to try and avoid the reality that 62,984,828 people voted for Trump. Those 62,984,828 are responsible for Trump being president. Them. No-one else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lazzamore wrote: Oooo-kay, I have an extremely hesitant question, and to preface this I AM a trump voter. Granted not at first, but I was when it was versus Clinton, or the other democrats even.
All I hear about on the news these days, more than any other story, is the latest allegation and investigation against Trump. But frankly, I'm at the point of hearing this that I'm wondering: What should we be so afraid of? And that's a serious question, honestly. I want to know out of curiosity what his opposition knows that I don't; Suppose we drop the allegations and abandon the investigations, what will he do that I should be worried about?
You're question has everything all mixed up. Trump isn't being investigated because of what he might do as president. He's being investigated because there is a high probability that Trump and his associates broke the law.
The purpose of investigation and prosecution is the enforcement of the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: It's also worth nothing that the method Trump used to pay Cohen while obscuring the payments is potentially a criminal banking violation in and of itself - structuring. Oops, got beaten to this.
And that part is interesting because the initial payment to Daniels was made out of San Francisco. Which gives California jurisdiction to prosecute the money structuring component. Which means it is a state prosecution, and one that avoids the New York problem where state crimes can be pardoned by substitution.
All of which adds to the pressure on Cohen that he will face a prosecution that Trump can't save him from. Which significantly increases the chances that he'll flip.
I don't understand how Trump manages to continually find and harness people who are so relentlessly clownshoes, like Giuliani. I mean statistically you'd except to see a few more competent people, you know? Luck of the draw?
What's weird to me is Giuliani wasn't always an idiot. He was always a scumbag, but mostly a competent one. But a lot of his media work for Trump, even before now, has been a confused mess of random accusations and name calling. Now he comes out with this hot mess. It wasn't just the admission that Trump repaid Cohen, Giuliani also said Trump fired Comey because he wouldn't confirm Trump wasn't under suspicion. So he sunk Trump, twice.
Ouze wrote: I don't understand how Trump manages to continually find and harness people who are so relentlessly clownshoes, like Giuliani. I mean statistically you'd except to see a few more competent people, you know? Luck of the draw?
Trump thinks he's much smarter than he is (true of most people ofc) but also has a strong need to always be right, so anyone he recruits has to be a yes-man or at least very very diplomatic in how he presents something Trump doesn't want to be true. Just a guess, but maybe many of the competent people shy away because they'd like to actually show their competence instead of saying what the boss wants to hear?
Ouze wrote: It's also worth nothing that the method Trump used to pay Cohen while obscuring the payments is potentially a criminal banking violation in and of itself - structuring. Oops, got beaten to this.
I don't understand how Trump manages to continually find and harness people who are so relentlessly clownshoes, like Giuliani. I mean statistically you'd except to see a few more competent people, you know? Luck of the draw?
You hire like minded people. Criminals don't hire the guy with morals or a decent sense of right and wrong, they hire a guy willing to sell their soul for a buck or two regardless of what happens.
This is the state of things in the White House right now, this really just happened in Thursday's press conference;
Sanders: “Comey was fired for being a liar and a leaker.”
Reporter: “Ok then...what did Comey lie about or leak before being fired?”
Sanders: “Ummm...the President doesn’t have to give a reason for firing the FBI Director. Next question.”
It's basically pantomime at this point.
Spetulhu wrote: Trump thinks he's much smarter than he is (true of most people ofc) but also has a strong need to always be right, so anyone he recruits has to be a yes-man or at least very very diplomatic in how he presents something Trump doesn't want to be true. Just a guess, but maybe many of the competent people shy away because they'd like to actually show their competence instead of saying what the boss wants to hear?
Sort of. Trump has worked with and employed plenty of skilled people in the past. His original project management team were excellent. Then Trump saw an opportunity to build his name by fixing Wollman Rink, a project that had languished under government management for a long time. Trump not only saw an opportunity to take over a simple project that had been incredibly mismanaged but was now moving towards completion, he also saw a way to deliver the whole thing at a bargain basement price - he told his project management team and all the contractors to charge at below cost, because the free press from being the team to fix Wollman would be worth far more. Trump did bring the project in under budget, in time for Thanksgiving, but he took all the free press for himself. The people who actually did the work and took the financial hit didn't even get invited to the opening, they got burned and didn't work with Trump again.
Trump has burned a lot of skilled people that way. After decades of business like that, anyone with real talent learns to stay away, so it just leaves the grifters looking for a pay cheque.
sebster wrote: This is the state of things in the White House right now, this really just happened in Thursday's press conference;
Sanders: “Comey was fired for being a liar and a leaker.”
Reporter: “Ok then...what did Comey lie about or leak before being fired?”
Sanders: “Ummm...the President doesn’t have to give a reason for firing the FBI Director. Next question.”
sebster wrote: This is the state of things in the White House right now, this really just happened in Thursday's press conference;
Sanders: “Comey was fired for being a liar and a leaker.”
Reporter: “Ok then...what did Comey lie about or leak before being fired?”
Sanders: “Ummm...the President doesn’t have to give a reason for firing the FBI Director. Next question.”
It's basically pantomime at this point.
To be fair... she's right.
To be fair, if she's going to give a reason for the firing, she ought to be able to back it up.
sebster wrote: This is the state of things in the White House right now, this really just happened in Thursday's press conference;
Sanders: “Comey was fired for being a liar and a leaker.”
Reporter: “Ok then...what did Comey lie about or leak before being fired?”
Sanders: “Ummm...the President doesn’t have to give a reason for firing the FBI Director. Next question.”
It's basically pantomime at this point.
To be fair... she's right.
To be fair, if she's going to give a reason for the firing, she ought to be able to back it up.
You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".
No, it's pathetic and you know it is. Trump doesn't have to give a reason, but when his press secretary gives half a reason and then refuses to give any substantiation of that reason, it becomes obvious it's a lie covering the real reason.
Husband: Sorry I'm home late but I went and saw a movie by myself and I smell of perfume because there was a lady next to me in the movie wearing lots of perfurme.
Wife: What movie did you go and see?
Husband: I don't have to tell you what movies I watch.
I mean, yeah, it is true that people don't have to tell their wives what movies they watch, but no person can sensibly claim that's what is happening in that little conversation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".
No, she should have led with an actual explanation of why Trump decided to fire the FBI director less than half way through his tenure. This is how functioning human beings work - when asked why they took major decisions, they give explanations, because people don't want to be seen as crazy lunatics who do things for no good reason.
The only reason not to give that explanation is because the actual reason would demonstrate obstruction of justice.
Just as an aside, and nor sure I can find the picture again, but has anyone following US politics more closely seen propaganda against Stormy Daniel's lawyer Michael Avenatti?
I get Pinterest mails (my own fault for not blocking them) and amongst perfectly fine heaps of cat or dog pictures there might appear a single "motivational poster" with wildly exaggerated or totally false claims (US alt-right swill, usually) and one I saw recently presented the history of mr Avenatti so as to make it perfectly clear he's being funded by Obama, for some reason, to help persecute Trump. He did work for Democratic candidate campaigns while in law school, under Obama's future WH Chief of Staff, but the pic ofc presented it as him being employed as a full lawyer by the Dems...
Spetulhu wrote: Just as an aside, and nor sure I can find the picture again, but has anyone following US politics more closely seen propaganda against Stormy Daniel's lawyer Michael Avenatti?
I get Pinterest mails (my own fault for not blocking them) and amongst perfectly fine heaps of cat or dog pictures there might appear a single "motivational poster" with wildly exaggerated or totally false claims (US alt-right swill, usually) and one I saw recently presented the history of mr Avenatti so as to make it perfectly clear he's being funded by Obama, for some reason, to help persecute Trump. He did work for Democratic candidate campaigns while in law school, under Obama's future WH Chief of Staff, but the pic ofc presented it as him being employed as a full lawyer by the Dems...
There's a bunch of stories going around about Avenatti being funded by Democrats, yeah. Fraz half-repeated that crap here in this thread, maybe 10 or 20 pages back.
It kind of makes sense how the story started. I mean, Avenatti seems to be is working on this case not just out of a conviction to represent Daniels and bring her justice, he also seems to be pretty motivated by bringing Trump down. He isn't just pushing his own client's case, he's also commenting on Cohen's greater legal problems and whether he might flip on Trump, none of which helps Daniels' case. And I guess a lot of conservatives can't possibly fathom a reason Avenatti might want to do that, unless he was getting paid by Democrats. The idea of finding Trump to be a horrible president outside of any partisan conviction doesn't register with them. And of course, being what conservatives are in 2018, the idea that something might be true is enough to start claiming it, never mind any of the hassle of going and looking for evidence or anything like that.
Never mind that as well as having no evidence, the idea doesn't fit with what we know about Avenatti. Before he took the Daniels case, Avenatti was lead counsel in a medical fraud case that produced a $460m settlement. Avenatti doesn't need Democrat's money, Democrat's need Avenatti's money.
Who knew that Big porcelain money has such an affect on the American political system.
Blankenship is doing this really weird thing. He's clearly going after McConnell's wife because she's Asian, but he's trying to be clever about it, sort of, because Blankenship's own wife is Asian. So the point of distinction is McConnell's wife isn't just Asian, but was born in China. She left as a child, and now has a long history of service in Republican governments, but to Blankenship it still means she's a Chinese plant. It makes no damn sense of course, but to the right racist addled brain it might work well enough. So Blankenship has to tread a fine line where he attacks McConnell's wife's ethnicity, while differentiating it from his own wife's ethnicity. Blankenship's answer to this is to use 'China people' because this is the finest political mind of our time, apart from Donald Trump.
Also, this lunatic is freshly released from prison, where he served a year for his part in conspiring to ignore safety regs, which caused an accident that killed 29 people.
Anyone wondering where the modern GOP is today, then look no further than a man convicted of criminal breaches of safety regs that killed people, running on a campaign of gibberish and racism, picking up 20% of the Republican voters.
sebster wrote: Anyone wondering where the modern GOP is today, then look no further than a man convicted of criminal breaches of safety regs that killed people, running on a campaign of gibberish and racism, picking up 20% of the Republican voters.
It's not all bad. When he referred to Mcconnell's father in law as "a wealthy Chinaperson", at least he didn't assume a gender, right?
Ouze wrote: It's not all bad. When he referred to Mcconnell's father in law as "a wealthy Chinaperson", at least he didn't assume a gender, right?
Good pick up. That 20% of West Virginia Republicans who support Blankenship must be drawn to his lack of gendered pronouns. Here was me wrongly condemning a large minority of the GOP for falling in behind a racial demogogue who's criminal business practices killed people, but it turns out I just really underestimated the portion of conservatives who are really committed to ending gendered language. My sincerest apologies.
Who knew that Big porcelain money has such an affect on the American political system.
Blankenship is doing this really weird thing. He's clearly going after McConnell's wife because she's Asian, but he's trying to be clever about it, sort of, because Blankenship's own wife is Asian. So the point of distinction is McConnell's wife isn't just Asian, but was born in China. She left as a child, and now has a long history of service in Republican governments, but to Blankenship it still means she's a Chinese plant. It makes no damn sense of course, but to the right racist addled brain it might work well enough. So Blankenship has to tread a fine line where he attacks McConnell's wife's ethnicity, while differentiating it from his own wife's ethnicity. Blankenship's answer to this is to use 'China people' because this is the finest political mind of our time, apart from Donald Trump.
Also, this lunatic is freshly released from prison, where he served a year for his part in conspiring to ignore safety regs, which caused an accident that killed 29 people.
Anyone wondering where the modern GOP is today, then look no further than a man convicted of criminal breaches of safety regs that killed people, running on a campaign of gibberish and racism, picking up 20% of the Republican voters.
20% is actually a deceptively low number here, because that guy will be prone to low numbers to start because he just oozes charisma.
sebster wrote: Does everyone remember that stupid, stupid 'Jade Helm' nonsense? It was a military exercise across several states that conspiracy theorists believed was secretly some kind of plan to start nabbing political opponents, or something. It was dumb, but it got enough interest from the crazies that Texan Governor Greg Abbott threw threw them a bone and ended up ordering the the National Guard to monitor the parts of the operation that took place in Texas. Michael Hayden, former CIA director, says that idiocy wasn't just a product of far right conspiracy nutters, a large part of the conspiracy was driven by Russian bots, and getting that response out of Abbott convinced the Russians their operations could impact American politics.
Prestor Jon wrote: If Democrats really didn’t want Trump to win they should have shown up and voted for Clinton. If Democrats has turned out for Hillary the way they turned out for Obama in 2012 Trump wouldn’t be POTUS. With Obama’s legacy on the line and Trump as the opposing candidate Democrats chose not to vote for Hillary and lost states like Wisconsin and Ohio. Trump’ vote total was in line with McCain’s and Romney’s, the GOPs “maverick” and the governor of Massachusetts and proponent of Romneycare. That’s pretty clear evidence that Republican voters care a lot more about the (R) next to a candidates name than any degree of ideological purity or party platform adherence.
That's a hell of a lot of talk to try and avoid the reality that 62,984,828 people voted for Trump. Those 62,984,828 are responsible for Trump being president. Them. No-one else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lazzamore wrote: Oooo-kay, I have an extremely hesitant question, and to preface this I AM a trump voter. Granted not at first, but I was when it was versus Clinton, or the other democrats even.
All I hear about on the news these days, more than any other story, is the latest allegation and investigation against Trump. But frankly, I'm at the point of hearing this that I'm wondering: What should we be so afraid of? And that's a serious question, honestly. I want to know out of curiosity what his opposition knows that I don't; Suppose we drop the allegations and abandon the investigations, what will he do that I should be worried about?
You're question has everything all mixed up. Trump isn't being investigated because of what he might do as president. He's being investigated because there is a high probability that Trump and his associates broke the law.
The purpose of investigation and prosecution is the enforcement of the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: It's also worth nothing that the method Trump used to pay Cohen while obscuring the payments is potentially a criminal banking violation in and of itself - structuring. Oops, got beaten to this.
And that part is interesting because the initial payment to Daniels was made out of San Francisco. Which gives California jurisdiction to prosecute the money structuring component. Which means it is a state prosecution, and one that avoids the New York problem where state crimes can be pardoned by substitution.
All of which adds to the pressure on Cohen that he will face a prosecution that Trump can't save him from. Which significantly increases the chances that he'll flip.
I don't understand how Trump manages to continually find and harness people who are so relentlessly clownshoes, like Giuliani. I mean statistically you'd except to see a few more competent people, you know? Luck of the draw?
What's weird to me is Giuliani wasn't always an idiot. He was always a scumbag, but mostly a competent one. But a lot of his media work for Trump, even before now, has been a confused mess of random accusations and name calling. Now he comes out with this hot mess. It wasn't just the admission that Trump repaid Cohen, Giuliani also said Trump fired Comey because he wouldn't confirm Trump wasn't under suspicion. So he sunk Trump, twice.
Do people get dumber just for being around Trump?
Jade Helm was a real but very minor exercise. A couple if farmers had land leased etc. No biggie and the locals we're happy to make some money. The rest, including the governor:crazy.
This is one of those “feelings” things because there isn’t really any actual evidence. But the Jade Helm thing brought it back to my mind, and it reminded me of all the stupid random ways Obama was going to become a dictator (he armed the Boy Scouts to create an Obamacare Youth, because people never heard of the explorer program).
Now Trump is surrounding himself with generals and admirals. I have a feeling that if Obama had the same number of high ranking cabinet members and advisors we would have heard claims that we are now run by a Junta.
sebster wrote: This is the state of things in the White House right now, this really just happened in Thursday's press conference;
Sanders: “Comey was fired for being a liar and a leaker.”
Reporter: “Ok then...what did Comey lie about or leak before being fired?”
Sanders: “Ummm...the President doesn’t have to give a reason for firing the FBI Director. Next question.”
It's basically pantomime at this point.
Spetulhu wrote: Trump thinks he's much smarter than he is (true of most people ofc) but also has a strong need to always be right, so anyone he recruits has to be a yes-man or at least very very diplomatic in how he presents something Trump doesn't want to be true. Just a guess, but maybe many of the competent people shy away because they'd like to actually show their competence instead of saying what the boss wants to hear?
Sort of. Trump has worked with and employed plenty of skilled people in the past. His original project management team were excellent. Then Trump saw an opportunity to build his name by fixing Wollman Rink, a project that had languished under government management for a long time. Trump not only saw an opportunity to take over a simple project that had been incredibly mismanaged but was now moving towards completion, he also saw a way to deliver the whole thing at a bargain basement price - he told his project management team and all the contractors to charge at below cost, because the free press from being the team to fix Wollman would be worth far more. Trump did bring the project in under budget, in time for Thanksgiving, but he took all the free press for himself. The people who actually did the work and took the financial hit didn't even get invited to the opening, they got burned and didn't work with Trump again.
Trump has burned a lot of skilled people that way. After decades of business like that, anyone with real talent learns to stay away, so it just leaves the grifters looking for a pay cheque.
I had heard something like that. Do you have more color?
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
I trust that to counter the number of people who would now have to carry to term they will be instituting a comprehensive program of free contraception for the state, alongside comprehensive sex education which never gives a platform to abstinence only advocates.
No, of course they're not because reducing abortions isn't their goal.
In situations like that it’s less about legislation actually surviving anything. It’s all about simply being able to say “I voted to save lives” and painting the courts as liberal baby killers.
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
It says right in the article that the governor hasn’t signed it yet so it’s not a law yet. It also makes it clear that the Republicans in the state legislature passed the bill in the hope that it would improve their chances in the upcoming midterm elections so the governor probably won’t sign prior to the election in order to make it easier for legislators to run on it as a campaign issue. It also points out that Republicans for whatever reason believe that if states pass these kind of laws it will lead to SCOTUS hearing more abortion cases with the potential to revise or overturn Roe v Wade so that is their motivation.
I think it's hard to see it as anything other than virtue signaling at taxpayer expense via hopeless litigation, brought to you by self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives.
Ah well. I would like to say the governor won't sign it but she most definitely will.
whembly wrote: You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".
No, she should have led with an actual explanation of why Trump decided to fire the FBI director less than half way through his tenure. This is how functioning human beings work - when asked why they took major decisions, they give explanations, because people don't want to be seen as crazy lunatics who do things for no good reason.
It's good politics to give informed, reasonable explanations. I'm not disputing that. But, in this case, all she had to say was the POTUS wanted to go a different direction with someone else.
The only reason not to give that explanation is because the actual reason would demonstrate obstruction of justice.
No, because all the Executive power is vested in the POTUS. ALL.OF.IT.
'Tis why it's a big deal to be POTUS.
As such a POTUS simply exercising the office's Article II power in hiring or firing political positions in Executive Branch by definition can't be obstruction of justice. A much stronger case for obstruction, is for Trump to asking people in his orbit to lie for him under oath of an ongoing investigation... and, let's be honest, there's a high likelihood of that happening, as I'm willing to be that he did that with Mike Flynn... and why Flynn is cooperating and only got ding'ed on process crime.
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
I used to think that Republicans were inconsistent on life, what with being anti-abortion and anti-healthcare but being pro-war and pro-death penalty, but I have another theory now: They actually love killing people, but they take a long minded method toward achieving this goal. The catharsis from killing someone is great, but the kill is delicate like wine. It must be aged and manufactured with care. It's why we maintain the situation in the middle east. It's why we turn criminals into even more desperate and violent people, rather than actually try to rehabilitate them.
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
Smallergovernment... not tiny.
I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care? Have you fostered or adopted a child? Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves? Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things
For the most part anti-abortion laws are constructed around restricting and punishing the sexual freedom of women. Remember what Trump said about this one?
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
Smallergovernment... not tiny.
I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care? Have you fostered or adopted a child? Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves? Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things
You're making the mistake that being against the current way Sex Ed is implemented is being against Sex Education of any kind. Sex Ed should be taught, but differently than most schools handle it now.
You should abstain unless you are in a committed relationship(because that is the healthiest option, both physically and emotionally). But if you do not abstain, you should use protection and birth control(and should even when you are in a relationship just for safety). But you should understand that protection and birth control are not 100% effective, so by using them you take on the risk of an undesired pregnancy or STD, have some free condoms if you want them. Abortion should not be taught as a "Get out of Jail Free Card" like it is now. You made the choice to have sex and got pregnant, with or without birthcontrol, you have to live with the consequences of having a baby. Weather you keep it or give it up for adoption. We should of course funnel more money into adoption and programs to help struggling mothers, not encourage them to kill their babies for the crime of simply existing. Abortion should be limited to only being performed in the event of life threatening complications where it is impossible to save both the baby and the mother.
Sex Ed should also involve the parents and not be just handled by the schools without parental involvement. If you had a sex ed day at school and required the parents to be involved when their child's turn comes up would be ideal.
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
Smallergovernment... not tiny.
I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care? Have you fostered or adopted a child? Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves? Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things
You're making the mistake that being against the current way Sex Ed is implemented is being against Sex Education of any kind. Sex Ed should be taught, but differently than most schools handle it now.
You should abstain unless you are in a committed relationship(because that is the healthiest option, both physically and emotionally). But if you do not abstain, you should use protection and birth control(and should even when you are in a relationship just for safety). But you should understand that protection and birth control are not 100% effective, so by using them you take on the risk of an undesired pregnancy or STD, have some free condoms if you want them. Abortion should not be taught as a "Get out of Jail Free Card" like it is now. You made the choice to have sex and got pregnant, with or without birthcontrol, you have to live with the consequences of having a baby. Weather you keep it or give it up for adoption. We should of course funnel more money into adoption and programs to help struggling mothers, not encourage them to kill their babies for the crime of simply existing. Abortion should be limited to only being performed in the event of life threatening complications where it is impossible to save both the baby and the mother.
Sex Ed should also involve the parents and not be just handled by the schools without parental involvement. If you had a sex ed day at school and required the parents to be involved when their child's turn comes up would be ideal.
Except that is has been proven that abstinence only programs have much much higher rates of teen pregnancy. It is nothing but a blanket attempt to repress sexual freedom by creepy old men who are obsessed with purity
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
Smallergovernment... not tiny.
I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care?
1) had a family member who was raped and chose to keep the child.
2) I have donated time and money for adoption / foster care services and generically to church programs that are involved in this.
3) I've even donated my time to kids who were convicted of crimes and sent to boarding school.
Have you fostered or adopted a child?
I have two boys (12 & 14yo). Remarried 3 years ago, and yes we're actively looking at adoption (holy gak balls the process is expensive!).
Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves?
Irrelevant. The child is not a choice at that point.
Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things
I *am* for massive foster/adoption reforms.
I do *NOT* have a probelm with teach safe sex in schools.
Please don't attribute stereotypes like this, simply ask the questions THEN form your opinion.
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
Smallergovernment... not tiny.
I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care? Have you fostered or adopted a child? Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves? Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things
You're making the mistake that being against the current way Sex Ed is implemented is being against Sex Education of any kind. Sex Ed should be taught, but differently than most schools handle it now.
You should abstain unless you are in a committed relationship(because that is the healthiest option, both physically and emotionally). But if you do not abstain, you should use protection and birth control(and should even when you are in a relationship just for safety). But you should understand that protection and birth control are not 100% effective, so by using them you take on the risk of an undesired pregnancy or STD, have some free condoms if you want them. Abortion should not be taught as a "Get out of Jail Free Card" like it is now. You made the choice to have sex and got pregnant, with or without birthcontrol, you have to live with the consequences of having a baby. Weather you keep it or give it up for adoption. We should of course funnel more money into adoption and programs to help struggling mothers, not encourage them to kill their babies for the crime of simply existing. Abortion should be limited to only being performed in the event of life threatening complications where it is impossible to save both the baby and the mother.
Sex Ed should also involve the parents and not be just handled by the schools without parental involvement. If you had a sex ed day at school and required the parents to be involved when their child's turn comes up would be ideal.
Except that is has been proven that abstinence only programs have much much higher rates of teen pregnancy. It is nothing but a blanket attempt to repress sexual freedom by creepy old men who are obsessed with purity
Did I say Abstinence only? No.
What I'm saying is Abstinence should be taught along with other methods, because it is the only 100% reliable way to not get pregnant or and STD. Thus it has physical value.
The system should be "Don't do it, but if you do do it, do it this way"
I love how the equivalent of having a baby by accident and then forced to have it is considered on the level of prison, seems about right in life destroying consequences.
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
Smallergovernment... not tiny.
I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care? Have you fostered or adopted a child? Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves? Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things
You're making the mistake that being against the current way Sex Ed is implemented is being against Sex Education of any kind. Sex Ed should be taught, but differently than most schools handle it now.
You should abstain unless you are in a committed relationship(because that is the healthiest option, both physically and emotionally). But if you do not abstain, you should use protection and birth control(and should even when you are in a relationship just for safety). But you should understand that protection and birth control are not 100% effective, so by using them you take on the risk of an undesired pregnancy or STD, have some free condoms if you want them. Abortion should not be taught as a "Get out of Jail Free Card" like it is now. You made the choice to have sex and got pregnant, with or without birthcontrol, you have to live with the consequences of having a baby. Weather you keep it or give it up for adoption. We should of course funnel more money into adoption and programs to help struggling mothers, not encourage them to kill their babies for the crime of simply existing. Abortion should be limited to only being performed in the event of life threatening complications where it is impossible to save both the baby and the mother.
Sex Ed should also involve the parents and not be just handled by the schools without parental involvement. If you had a sex ed day at school and required the parents to be involved when their child's turn comes up would be ideal.
Except that is has been proven that abstinence only programs have much much higher rates of teen pregnancy. It is nothing but a blanket attempt to repress sexual freedom by creepy old men who are obsessed with purity
Did I say Abstinence only? No.
What I'm saying is Abstinence should be taught along with other methods, because it is the only 100% reliable way to not get pregnant or and STD. Thus it has physical value.
The system should be "Don't do it, but if you do do it, do it this way"
You are literally implying they are making the wrong decision and posting false information that abstinence is the best decision, so yes you are pretty much implying abstinence only. Which is ironic because you and other republicans always complain about government overreach and then you spout gak like this
You are literally implying they are making the wrong decision and posting false information that abstinence is the best decision, so yes you are pretty much implying abstinence only. Which is ironic because you and other republicans always complain about government overreach and then you spout gak like this
Its not false that abstinence is the best decision, if you define best decision as the lowest probability of getting pregnant or contracting an STD. I'm also saying we should teach about birth control and have it available. Ergo, that is not Abstinence only. Its Abstinence Preferred.
Abstinence Only would be only telling kids that you shouldn't have sex and not teaching them about alternatives, which is not what I am saying.
You're making the mistake that being against the current way Sex Ed is implemented is being against Sex Education of any kind. Sex Ed should be taught, but differently than most schools handle it now.
You should abstain unless you are in a committed relationship(because that is the healthiest option, both physically and emotionally). But if you do not abstain, you should use protection and birth control(and should even when you are in a relationship just for safety). But you should understand that protection and birth control are not 100% effective, so by using them you take on the risk of an undesired pregnancy or STD, have some free condoms if you want them. Abortion should not be taught as a "Get out of Jail Free Card" like it is now. You made the choice to have sex and got pregnant, with or without birthcontrol, you have to live with the consequences of having a baby. Weather you keep it or give it up for adoption. We should of course funnel more money into adoption and programs to help struggling mothers, not encourage them to kill their babies for the crime of simply existing. Abortion should be limited to only being performed in the event of life threatening complications where it is impossible to save both the baby and the mother.
Sex Ed should also involve the parents and not be just handled by the schools without parental involvement. If you had a sex ed day at school and required the parents to be involved when their child's turn comes up would be ideal.
Citation for abortion being taught as a get out of jail free card in schools, or anywhere for that matter?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.
The baby is innocent of the crime. Only the rapist in this scenario has any blame.
Aborting a rape baby just creates two victims instead of one. You murder an innocent human being and have a victimized women.
Frankly, your position that the baby is also guilty of the rape and must be punished with death is the disgusting one. Thats a bigger punishment than the rapist would receive.
You are literally implying they are making the wrong decision and posting false information that abstinence is the best decision, so yes you are pretty much implying abstinence only. Which is ironic because you and other republicans always complain about government overreach and then you spout gak like this
Its not false that abstinence is the best decision, if you define best decision as the lowest probability of getting pregnant or contracting an STD. I'm also saying we should teach about birth control and have it available. Ergo, that is not Abstinence only. Its Abstinence Preferred.
Abstinence Only would be only telling kids that you shouldn't have sex and not teaching them about alternatives, which is not what I am saying.
Abstinence doesn't need to be taught. Kids have been doing it for years up to that point.
What does need to be taught is stuff like consent, so kids feel comfortable with saying no and having that decision respected. Something abstinence teaching does not do as the people who teach it focus on how sex before marriage makes people "dirty". The people who teach abstinence regularly undermine the sex ed teaching with actual facts in.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.
The baby is innocent of the crime. Only the rapist in this scenario has any blame.
Aborting a rape baby just creates two victims instead of one. You murder and innocent human being and have a victimized women.
Frankly, your position that the baby is also guilty of the rape and must be punished with death is the disgusting one. Thats a bigger punishment than the rapist would receive.
Why not just make the woman marry the rapist? The baby is innocent and frankly its disgusting you want to take the poor baby's father away! See I can fake outrage too.
Forcing a woman to be reminded of the most horrible traumatic event for the rest of her life, now that is truly disgusting and inhumane in favor of a blob of cells.
You are literally implying they are making the wrong decision and posting false information that abstinence is the best decision, so yes you are pretty much implying abstinence only. Which is ironic because you and other republicans always complain about government overreach and then you spout gak like this
Its not false that abstinence is the best decision, if you define best decision as the lowest probability of getting pregnant or contracting an STD. I'm also saying we should teach about birth control and have it available. Ergo, that is not Abstinence only. Its Abstinence Preferred.
Abstinence Only would be only telling kids that you shouldn't have sex and not teaching them about alternatives, which is not what I am saying.
Abstinence doesn't need to be taught. Kids have been doing it for years up to that point.
What does need to be taught is stuff like consent, so kids feel comfortable with saying no and having that decision respected. Something abstinence teaching does not do as the people who teach it focus on how sex before marriage makes people "dirty".
Who says you can't both teach Consent and Abstinence? They aren't mutually exclusive subjects.
And... CNN is reporting Trump just threw Guiliani under the bus... That he didn't have all the facts on the case. Guiliani should quickly use this as an excuse to bail.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.
The baby is innocent of the crime. Only the rapist in this scenario has any blame.
Aborting a rape baby just creates two victims instead of one. You murder and innocent human being and have a victimized women.
Frankly, your position that the baby is also guilty of the rape and must be punished with death is the disgusting one. Thats a bigger punishment than the rapist would receive.
Why not just make the woman marry the rapist? The baby is innocent and frankly its disgusting you want to take the poor baby's father away! See I can fake outrage too.
Forcing a woman to be reminded of the most horrible traumatic event for the rest of her life, now that is truly disgusting and inhumane in favor of a blob of cells.
I'm not faking outrage. You are quite literally dehumanizing a person so you can justify murdering them. Because its not murder if its not a person right? That is quite literally how the Nazis justified the Holocaust.
I know plenty of women who have kept their rape babies, or given them up for adoption(like I was). It doesn't have to be a continual reminder of that traumatic event. The baby can be given to another family who wants it, or kept in the event you want it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.
The baby is innocent of the crime. Only the rapist in this scenario has any blame.
Aborting a rape baby just creates two victims instead of one. You murder and innocent human being and have a victimized women.
Frankly, your position that the baby is also guilty of the rape and must be punished with death is the disgusting one. Thats a bigger punishment than the rapist would receive.
Why not just make the woman marry the rapist? The baby is innocent and frankly its disgusting you want to take the poor baby's father away! See I can fake outrage too.
Forcing a woman to be reminded of the most horrible traumatic event for the rest of her life, now that is truly disgusting and inhumane in favor of a blob of cells.
I'm not faking outrage. You are quite literally dehumanizing a person so you can justify murdering them. Because its not murder if its not a person right? That is quite literally how the Nazis justified the Holocaust.
I know plenty of women who have kept their rape babies, or given them up for adoption(like I was). It doesn't have to be a continual reminder of that traumatic event. The baby can be given to another family who wants it, or kept in the event you want it.
Its not a person, its not even a baby. If you take it out at say 15 weeks its just going to die because it isn't a viable lifeform yet. You throw it on the emotional argument by just calling all 9 months a baby, but a baby can survive outside the womb.
But sure, I'm the Nazi for not wanting to destroy women's lives with rape babies. Yeah and what if the mother suffers health complications, mental traumas or financial issues. If only it was as easy as "lol adoption". I think the person fighting against women's rights should complain less about 'dehumanization' to the person with the law on his side. I'm not the one reducing women to wombs on legs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: And... CNN is reporting Trump just threw Guiliani under the bus... That he didn't have all the facts on the case. Guiliani should quickly use this as an excuse to bail.
Guiliani just loves crawling back under that bus over and over. Why else did he decided to join now of all moments.
You are literally implying they are making the wrong decision and posting false information that abstinence is the best decision, so yes you are pretty much implying abstinence only. Which is ironic because you and other republicans always complain about government overreach and then you spout gak like this
Its not false that abstinence is the best decision, if you define best decision as the lowest probability of getting pregnant or contracting an STD. I'm also saying we should teach about birth control and have it available. Ergo, that is not Abstinence only. Its Abstinence Preferred.
Abstinence Only would be only telling kids that you shouldn't have sex and not teaching them about alternatives, which is not what I am saying.
Abstinence doesn't need to be taught. Kids have been doing it for years up to that point.
What does need to be taught is stuff like consent, so kids feel comfortable with saying no and having that decision respected. Something abstinence teaching does not do as the people who teach it focus on how sex before marriage makes people "dirty".
Who says you can't both teach Consent and Abstinence? They aren't mutually exclusive subjects.
Nothing, apart from abstinence being one line.
"You don't have to have sex until you feel ready to and nobody should force you to. Not having sex is the best way to not get pregnant or catch an STD."
That is literally everything you need to cover regarding abstinence. And guess what? That does get covered in a comprehensive sex education.
Arguing for abstinence to be taught alongside comprehensive sex ed is literally just arguing for more time spent on something which only needs two sentences, to the detriment of everything else.
You want to know what kind of stuff abstinence education includes? It includes teaching girls who have been raped that they are like a dirty shoe and no-one would want to wear them.
Its not a person, its not even a baby. If you take it out at say 15 weeks its just going to die because it isn't a viable lifeform yet. You throw it on the emotional argument by just calling all 9 months a baby, but a baby can survive outside the womb.
But sure, I'm the Nazi for not wanting to destroy women's lives with rape babies. Yeah and what if the mother suffers health complications, mental traumas or financial issues. If only it was as easy as "lol adoption". I think the person fighting against women's rights should complain less about 'dehumanization' to the person with the law on his side.
A baby will die without someone taking care of it for the first several years after its born because it cannot take care of itself. And as medical science continues to advance, we will eventually be able to have a baby of any gestation length be able to survive outside the womb.
No, you're not a Nazi, but you are using the exact same line of justification which they used to justify ethnic cleansing. And having to have a baby and then give it up for adoption will not destroy anybody's life, given that plenty of women have done exactly that.
I'm not fighting against women's rights, I'm fighting for the right of an unborn baby to not be executed for the crime of simply existing. Women have the right to decide if they want to have sex or not, and get pregnant or not. But once pregnancy occurs the window for choice is past. Thats why Rape is such a heinous crime, it bypasses choice, but the solution isn't to murder the unborn child.
Its not a person, its not even a baby. If you take it out at say 15 weeks its just going to die because it isn't a viable lifeform yet. You throw it on the emotional argument by just calling all 9 months a baby, but a baby can survive outside the womb.
But sure, I'm the Nazi for not wanting to destroy women's lives with rape babies. Yeah and what if the mother suffers health complications, mental traumas or financial issues. If only it was as easy as "lol adoption". I think the person fighting against women's rights should complain less about 'dehumanization' to the person with the law on his side.
A baby will die without someone taking care of it for the first several years after its born because it cannot take care of itself. And as medical science continues to advance, we will eventually be able to have a baby of any gestation length be able to survive outside the womb.
No, you're not a Nazi, but you are using the exact same line of justification which they used to justify ethnic cleansing. And having to have a baby and then give it up for adoption will not destroy anybody's life, given that plenty of women have done exactly that.
I'm not fighting against women's rights, I'm fighting for the right of an unborn baby to not be executed for the crime of simply existing. Women have the right to decide if they want to have sex or not, and get pregnant or not. But once pregnancy occurs the window for choice is past. Thats why Rape is such a heinous crime, it bypasses choice, but the solution isn't to murder the unborn child.
Exactly and no Republican is jumping into the breach to take care of babies that are born, ergo anti-abortion laws are nothing more than punishing the sexual freedom of women.
Nope, see there you go again with the emotion, I'm not the one reducing women to baby birthing property here!
Its not a person, its not even a baby. If you take it out at say 15 weeks its just going to die because it isn't a viable lifeform yet. You throw it on the emotional argument by just calling all 9 months a baby, but a baby can survive outside the womb.
But sure, I'm the Nazi for not wanting to destroy women's lives with rape babies. Yeah and what if the mother suffers health complications, mental traumas or financial issues. If only it was as easy as "lol adoption". I think the person fighting against women's rights should complain less about 'dehumanization' to the person with the law on his side.
A baby will die without someone taking care of it for the first several years after its born because it cannot take care of itself. And as medical science continues to advance, we will eventually be able to have a baby of any gestation length be able to survive outside the womb.
No, you're not a Nazi, but you are using the exact same line of justification which they used to justify ethnic cleansing. And having to have a baby and then give it up for adoption will not destroy anybody's life, given that plenty of women have done exactly that.
I'm not fighting against women's rights, I'm fighting for the right of an unborn baby to not be executed for the crime of simply existing. Women have the right to decide if they want to have sex or not, and get pregnant or not. But once pregnancy occurs the window for choice is past. Thats why Rape is such a heinous crime, it bypasses choice, but the solution isn't to murder the unborn child.
But what you are advocating is literally removing a right held by a woman for 9 months of her life. End of discussion there.
And DoF is pretty much right, there are big functional differences between a fetus and a baby. .
More to the line of discussion. When I was doing health classes in high school, our teacher certainly covered abstinence, AFTER covering in horribly gory detail ALL of the inner workings of man parts and lady parts. I'm talking, gory to the point one of the girls rushed to the hallway to puke during one of the slide shows. We got a very good understanding of the physical processes of menstruation, what sex is, how to use condoms and other contraceptives, graphic pictorial evidence of what various STIs look like (back then, they were STDs), etc. etc. Essentially, it was "here's all the sexual things that happens within the human body. . . . aaaaaaand, here's how you could avoid all that"
Ensis Ferrae wrote: More to the line of discussion. When I was doing health classes in high school, our teacher certainly covered abstinence, AFTER covering in horribly gory detail ALL of the inner workings of man parts and lady parts. I'm talking, gory to the point one of the girls rushed to the hallway to puke during one of the slide shows. We got a very good understanding of the physical processes of menstruation, what sex is, how to use condoms and other contraceptives, graphic pictorial evidence of what various STIs look like (back then, they were STDs), etc. etc. Essentially, it was "here's all the sexual things that happens within the human body. . . . aaaaaaand, here's how you could avoid all that"
Man, your high school health classes sounded amazing
We got roughly the same kind of sex ed at around 14, nobody puked though.
feeder wrote: I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
feeder wrote: I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
Pretty sure the state doesn't have an interest, hence law enforcement not being there to serve and protect...
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.
The baby is innocent of the crime. Only the rapist in this scenario has any blame.
Aborting a rape baby just creates two victims instead of one. You murder an innocent human being and have a victimized women.
Frankly, your position that the baby is also guilty of the rape and must be punished with death is the disgusting one. Thats a bigger punishment than the rapist would receive.
Yet if it was your daughter or wife your opinion would be different. Not to mention the fallacy that of a bundle of stem cells with no cognitive function is the same as a human being; 10-20% of pregnancies result in miscarriage accidental death, but pro-life advocates don't care one bit.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
Maybe that's the legalese used for current standards, but 'compelling interest' isn't enough to override things like the 13th amendment. Which is essentially the argument - that women be compelled to arduous, unreimbursed work that puts their life at risk "becuz responsibility", because some people are uncomfortable with women having autonomy.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
Maybe that's the legalese used for current standards, but 'compelling interest' isn't enough to override things like the 13th amendment. Which is essentially the argument - that women be compelled to arduous, unreimbursed work that puts their life at risk "becuz responsibility", because some people are uncomfortable with women having autonomy.
Notably the man is not compelled to provide anything.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
Maybe that's the legalese used for current standards, but 'compelling interest' isn't enough to override things like the 13th amendment. Which is essentially the argument - that women be compelled to arduous, unreimbursed work that puts their life at risk "becuz responsibility", because some people are uncomfortable with women having autonomy.
Notably the man is not compelled to provide anything.
Oh you have done it now, prepare for incoming "a man has no choice but has to pay for it anyway" comments.
feeder wrote: I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
Pretty sure the state doesn't have an interest, hence law enforcement not being there to serve and protect...[/quote
You would be wrong. Please review the legal underpinning of Roe.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
Maybe that's the legalese used for current standards, but 'compelling interest' isn't enough to override things like the 13th amendment. Which is essentially the argument - that women be compelled to arduous, unreimbursed work that puts their life at risk "becuz responsibility", because some people are uncomfortable with women having autonomy.
feeder wrote: I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
Pretty sure the state doesn't have an interest, hence law enforcement not being there to serve and protect...
You would be wrong. Please review the legal underpinning of Roe.
Would I? Look at how healthcare is provided, look at how law enforcement is run, look at the prison system etc. Cherry picking one example of how the state has an interest when so many other factors show a lack of interest is not very convincing. Maybe you should have said the state has an interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens in very very specific circumstances.
For the work blocked (or those who, for whatever reason hate CNN): Conway, who is known for her truthiness as well as anyone else in the camp, said that she did not know about any payments "and I was the campaign manager"
I was trying to find a way to cool down the conversation here (not targeting you, Frazzled! You're just the last post before I saw this stuff), but I couldn't find a way to do it without being condescending. So I'm just going to put a general thread warning here, and want to remind everyone that the US Politics thread is still in the "maybe we keep you, maybe we Lenny you" phase.
feeder wrote: I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
Pretty sure the state doesn't have an interest, hence law enforcement not being there to serve and protect...
You would be wrong. Please review the legal underpinning of Roe.
Would I? Look at how healthcare is provided, look at how law enforcement is run, look at the prison system etc. Cherry picking one example of how the state has an interest when so many other factors show a lack of interest is not very convincing. Maybe you should have said the state has an interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens in very very specific circumstances.
Again, please review Roe. It's not like I am almost quoting them verbatim or anything because it was on the Bar...
thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
We are in agreement here, I think.
I wonder how this would look, if the future provides the medical option of sustaining the growth of life outside the womb and abortion is limited based on that you would need an enormousness societal overhaul.
Lorek wrote: I was trying to find a way to cool down the conversation here (not targeting you, Frazzled! You're just the last post before I saw this stuff), but I couldn't find a way to do it without being condescending. So I'm just going to put a general thread warning here, and want to remind everyone that the US Politics thread is still in the "maybe we keep you, maybe we Lenny you" phase.
Yep. I am not being argument ative. I am on a cell phone or would quote the case directly.
Frazzled wrote: Again, please review Roe. It's not like I am almost quoting them verbatim or anything because it was on the Bar...
Again, Roe is on a very specific matter. The SCOTUS also ruled that police does not have the duty to serve and protect. How is that an interest in protecting the lives of its citizens? What about healthcare, how many deaths could be prevented by a different setup? How many lives could be saved by a more comprehensive social system to reduce crime? There are so many ways to 'protect' lives, but only one gets really championed. Why?
thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
We are in agreement here, I think.
I wonder how this would look, if the future provides the medical option of sustaining the growth of life outside the womb and abortion is limited based on that you would need an enormousness societal overhaul.
And here is the thing. Once that hits, then absent rulings I am not aware of, the State could take over.
As the immirtal bard said:"go back from when you came from. The future is not what it was."
Frazzled wrote: Again, please review Roe. It's not like I am almost quoting them verbatim or anything because it was on the Bar...
Again, Roe is on a very specific matter. The SCOTUS also ruled that police does not have the duty to serve and protect. How is that an interest in protecting the lives of its citizens? What about healthcare, how many deaths could be prevented by a different setup? How many lives could be saved by a more comprehensive social system to reduce crime? There are so many ways to 'protect' lives, but only one gets really championed. Why?
I am only clarifying what the legal standard is, not the philosophy of it's lCk of use in other areas.
thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
We are in agreement here, I think.
I wonder how this would look, if the future provides the medical option of sustaining the growth of life outside the womb and abortion is limited based on that you would need an enormousness societal overhaul.
And here is the thing. Once that hits, then absent rulings I am not aware of, the State could take over.
As the immirtal bard said:"go back from when you came from. The future is not what it was."
Sure, but the state is already incapable to handle the current number of children in the system. You would need massive changes because else you're just dumping these children in conditions that almost guarantee a hard life.
Frazzled wrote: Again, please review Roe. It's not like I am almost quoting them verbatim or anything because it was on the Bar...
Again, Roe is on a very specific matter. The SCOTUS also ruled that police does not have the duty to serve and protect. How is that an interest in protecting the lives of its citizens? What about healthcare, how many deaths could be prevented by a different setup? How many lives could be saved by a more comprehensive social system to reduce crime? There are so many ways to 'protect' lives, but only one gets really championed. Why?
I am only clarifying what the legal standard is, not the philosophy of it's lCk of use in other areas.
Fair enough, I'm just trying to look at it from a wider perspective. No offense intended.
feeder wrote: I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.
To become a citizen at birth, you must:
Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements
To become a citizen after birth, you must:
Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents
Apply for naturalization
There is literally zero provision for an unborn child to be classified as a citizen of the United States prior to its birth.
Frazzled wrote: Again, not arguing the morality, just what can happen when science advances.
Now you want to get weird, let's start talking about designer babies. Scary stuff.
Edit : daughter starts talking about CRISPR and the gak gets real man.
I think to an extent being able to engineer out disease and such is a good thing. Designer babies is a line we shouldn't cross in my opinion, scary stuff indeed.
I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.
From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?
Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.
Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.
Vaktathi wrote: Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female.
BTW, at least in my socialist country the employers of the parents have to fork out a bit of cash for parental leave. But true to form most of it is put on the woman's employer, meaning many companies looking at costs that have a choice would prefer to not employ women of childbearing age...
A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Friday in the bank fraud case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller's office against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, at one point saying he believes that Mueller's motivation is to oust President Donald Trump from office.
Although Mueller's authority has been tested in court before, Friday's hearing was notable for District Judge T.S. Ellis' decision to wade into the divisive political debate around the investigation.
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said to prosecutor Michael Dreeben, at times losing his temper. Ellis said prosecutors were interested in Manafort because of his potential to provide material that would lead to Trump's "prosecution or impeachment," Ellis said.
"That's what you're really interested in," said Ellis, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
Ellis repeated his suspicion several times in the hour-long court hearing. He said he'll make a decision at a later date about whether Manafort's case can go forward.
"We don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants," Ellis told Dreeben. "The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power."
When Dreeben answered Ellis' question about how the investigation and its charges date back to before the Trump campaign formed, the judge shot back, "None of that information has to do with information related to Russian government coordination and the campaign of Donald Trump."
At one point, Ellis posed a hypothetical question, speaking as if he were the prosecutor, about why Mueller's office referred a criminal investigation about Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen to New York authorities and kept the Manafort case in Virginia.
They weren't interested in it because it didn't "further our core effort to get Trump," Ellis said, mimicking a prosecutor in the case.
Prosecutors to turn over Rosenstein memo
Mueller's prosecutors will have to turn over a full, unredacted version of the August 2 memo that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein used to describe the criminal allegations Mueller's team could investigate, Ellis ordered.
The judge said he would like to see the full memo, which prosecutors submitted to the court in Virginia and in Washington, DC, for another case against Manafort with more than a page of redactions.
The visible part of the memo says Mueller should investigate allegations about Manafort's financial relationship with former Ukrainian politicians, and that he may have assisted Russia with attempts to interfere in the presidential election. The redacted portion appears to outline several other legs of the ongoing Russia probe.
Ellis said prosecutors may present the full classified memo to him under seal -- without showing Manafort its additional details -- in two weeks.
Mueller's prosecutors have argued this memo gives them the authority to bring cases against Manafort related to his work in Ukraine reaching back more than a decade before he joined the Trump campaign.
Manafort lost civil suit on similar complaint
Manafort is charged in Virginia with financial violations related to his lobbying work in Ukraine prior to joining Trump's 2016 campaign. Dreeben said they had to "follow the money" and find Manafort's contacts with Russians through the Ukrainian work and his financial dealings as part of their investigation.
He lost a civil suit making similar complaints about the special counsel's investigation last week. Manafort had filed a lawsuit in Washington claiming Rosenstein and Mueller exceeded their authority in charging him with alleged crimes he said had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign.
DC District Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed that lawsuit, saying a civil case was "not the appropriate vehicle" for objecting to either past or future actions by a prosecutor.
Manafort faces five charges in the case brought by Mueller's prosecutors in DC federal court, including money laundering and foreign lobbying violations.
So... I guess the judge is questioning how can an authorization of power written in 2017 to investigate crimes that supposedly happened in 2016 reach all the way back to include 2005 crimes? How can 2005 crimes be said to have "arisen" out of the 2017-2018 investigation?
Like... is he subliminally arguing that Mueller's prosecutors should've handed off the Manafort case to the DOJ? Seems like he's questioning jurisdictional thingamabob here...
We'll see how it plays out. I dont think Manafort is going to get out of anything, and he's facing a court also in DC that raised similar concerns but who appears to be far more accomodating to Mueller. It will be interesting to see what happens after the judge sees the Rosenstein memo.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.
From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?
Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.
Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.
That's a false choice. Not having an abortion doesn't compel anyone to raise the child. A woman can give birth and then give the baby up for adoption. I've got family members who were adopted and friends who have spent years and tens of thousands of dollars to adopt children. The process you have to go through to adopt children in the US is insane considering that women who are biologicially capable of having babies can have as many babies as they want with whomever they want.
Nobody is ever punished with a baby because nobody is ever forced to raise one. A fetus is typically viable outside the womb around 24 weeks and that should be the cut off for abortions. You can abort a clump of cells within a five months of becoming pregnant but you shouldn't be able to kill a tiny human that can live independently from you simply because you think it's existence is inconvenient. Once a fetus gestates to the point of being a baby that can survive without the mother then it is no longer part of her body, the baby is it's own body and person so the woman loses the right to arbitrarily kill it. It's not like premature babies aren't humans, there's an entire ward full of them at your local hospital. If a baby is born prematurely it's a baby person and is treated as such so why would a baby that's still in the womb at that time not be considered a baby and we should condone killing it?
whembly wrote: You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".
No, she should have led with an actual explanation of why Trump decided to fire the FBI director less than half way through his tenure. This is how functioning human beings work - when asked why they took major decisions, they give explanations, because people don't want to be seen as crazy lunatics who do things for no good reason.
The only reason not to give that explanation is because the actual reason would demonstrate obstruction of justice.
E.ven if the reason given is 'Because Trump felt he had an antagonistic relationship with the head of the FBI, and wanted to move beyond that' - no lies, and accurately conveys part of the cause for discord - without saying which side was acting in an antagonistic fashion.
Instead... we got what we got.
After Trump is done, I don't think there will be much left of Sander's career - 'Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold. For Dickon, thy master, is bought and sold'
The Auld Grump - but I needed to buy a Cone of Silence for my home!
In the US there are 9 states and DC that have no restrictions on when you can have an abortion, 3 states allow it up to 28 weeks and 26 states allow it up to 24-26 weeks.
You can abort a clump of cells within a five months of becoming pregnant but you shouldn't be able to kill a tiny human that can live independently from you simply because you think it's existence is inconvenient. Once a fetus gestates to the point of being a baby that can survive without the mother then it is no longer part of her body, the baby is it's own body and person so the woman loses the right to arbitrarily kill it. It's not like premature babies aren't humans, there's an entire ward full of them at your local hospital. If a baby is born prematurely it's a baby person and is treated as such so why would a baby that's still in the womb at that time not be considered a baby and we should condone killing it?
The issue is not about when the fetus is or isn't able to survive by itself or when it is or isn't a body separate from another body.
Tue issue is that you cannot be forced to undergo any kind of medical treatment or procedure against your will just to keep another human body alive. The law universally agrees that the second that baby is born, the mother can decide that any kind of medical procedure involving the mother that would keep the child alive is an inconvenience and allow the child to die without any legal consequence whatsoever:
Baby lost a lot of blood during child birth and needs an emergency transfusion to keep alive and the only source of blood is the mother and if we don't transfuse right now the baby dies? The mother has no legal responsibility of any kind to allow anybody to take her blood to give to the child, and if the child dies there is no legal recourse against mom because she cannot be forced to undergo treatment. Neither mother nor dad can be forced to donate bone marrow or a kidney to their child, just because the child can live outside of the body after is is born. Even before it is born, if a ultrasound finds a birth defect that will result in the death of the child after birth, but which is 100% correctable via fetal surgery and would allow the fetus to survive birth, there is no way to force the mother to have a surgery against her will to save the life of a child. It doesn't matter if it will die without it and survive with it, she cannot be forced to have the surgery.
There is just this weird idea that the only person that loses absolute autonomy over her body is a pregnant woman from the moment of fetal viability to childbirth. The reason abortion has been found legal over and over again is the same reason nobody can just go ahead and take your kidney.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is lots of talk about the ethical and moral issues of abortion. But from a legal aspect it's pretty cut and dry.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is lots of talk about the ethical and moral issues of abortion. But from a legal aspect it's pretty cut and dry.
whembly wrote: You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".
No, she should have led with an actual explanation of why Trump decided to fire the FBI director less than half way through his tenure. This is how functioning human beings work - when asked why they took major decisions, they give explanations, because people don't want to be seen as crazy lunatics who do things for no good reason.
The only reason not to give that explanation is because the actual reason would demonstrate obstruction of justice.
E.ven if the reason given is 'Because Trump felt he had an antagonistic relationship with the head of the FBI, and wanted to move beyond that' - no lies, and accurately conveys part of the cause for discord - without saying which side was acting in an antagonistic fashion.
Instead... we got what we got.
After Trump is done, I don't think there will be much left of Sander's career - 'Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold. For Dickon, thy master, is bought and sold'
The Auld Grump - but I needed to buy a Cone of Silence for my home!
So, are we really going with that Press Secretary shouldn't lie/spin for the President? Really?
Okay.
Well... I mean... it's *not* okay. But be honest here... every Press Secretary does it.... and EVERY Press Secretary will do so in the future.
Frankly, it's turning into a gak show (long before el Trumpo) such that we might as well as go old school: Reportors submit questions in writing, and the Press Office submits answers in writing later in the day (after which being fully and properly vetted).
Disciple of Fate wrote: I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.
The US.
All you need is a medical exception in most cases, and all it takes an MD's signature.
Hence D&E is still used. (where forcepts are used to dismember the limbs in utero)
Yeah ok, but medical exceptions are allowed in most countries after 24 weeks, a decision that isn't lightly taken because it also poses significant risk to the woman. Regular abortion has the 24 week cutoff it seems.
In the US there are 9 states and DC that have no restrictions on when you can have an abortion, 3 states allow it up to 28 weeks and 26 states allow it up to 24-26 weeks.
This seems more like a problematic legislation issue. No restrictions doesn't mean you will find a doctor giving you an abortion in your 32th week. It mostly seems to be included for reasons of medical exceptions, a standard exceeding 24 weeks in many countries that allow abortion.
You can abort a clump of cells within a five months of becoming pregnant but you shouldn't be able to kill a tiny human that can live independently from you simply because you think it's existence is inconvenient. Once a fetus gestates to the point of being a baby that can survive without the mother then it is no longer part of her body, the baby is it's own body and person so the woman loses the right to arbitrarily kill it. It's not like premature babies aren't humans, there's an entire ward full of them at your local hospital. If a baby is born prematurely it's a baby person and is treated as such so why would a baby that's still in the womb at that time not be considered a baby and we should condone killing it?
The issue is not about when the fetus is or isn't able to survive by itself or when it is or isn't a body separate from another body.
Tue issue is that you cannot be forced to undergo any kind of medical treatment or procedure against your will just to keep another human body alive. The law universally agrees that the second that baby is born, the mother can decide that any kind of medical procedure involving the mother that would keep the child alive is an inconvenience and allow the child to die without any legal consequence whatsoever:
Baby lost a lot of blood during child birth and needs an emergency transfusion to keep alive and the only source of blood is the mother and if we don't transfuse right now the baby dies? The mother has no legal responsibility of any kind to allow anybody to take her blood to give to the child, and if the child dies there is no legal recourse against mom because she cannot be forced to undergo treatment. Neither mother nor dad can be forced to donate bone marrow or a kidney to their child, just because the child can live outside of the body after is is born. Even before it is born, if a ultrasound finds a birth defect that will result in the death of the child after birth, but which is 100% correctable via fetal surgery and would allow the fetus to survive birth, there is no way to force the mother to have a surgery against her will to save the life of a child. It doesn't matter if it will die without it and survive with it, she cannot be forced to have the surgery.
There is just this weird idea that the only person that loses absolute autonomy over her body is a pregnant woman from the moment of fetal viability to childbirth. The reason abortion has been found legal over and over again is the same reason nobody can just go ahead and take your kidney.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is lots of talk about the ethical and moral issues of abortion. But from a legal aspect it's pretty cut and dry.
Nebraska has banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy since 2010. If it's legal to ban abortions at 20 weeks in the US then why wouldn't it be legal to ban them after 24 weeks?
Disciple of Fate wrote: I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.
the USA.
I should have specified abortion up to 24 weeks excluding medical reasons. Many countries have the medical reasons exception. Looking at CDC statistics the amount of people in the US that have an abortion after 24 weeks is absolutely tiny.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.
the USA.
I should have specified abortion up to 24 weeks excluding medical reasons. Many countries have the medical reasons exception. Looking at CDC statistics the amount of people in the US that have an abortion after 24 weeks is absolutely tiny.
Nebraska has banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy since 2010. If it's legal to ban abortions at 20 weeks in the US then why wouldn't it be legal to ban them after 24 weeks?
There is just this weird idea that the only person that loses absolute autonomy over her body is a pregnant woman from the moment of fetal viability to childbirth.
Once it's out, no medical treatment can be forced on anyone anywhere to keep that child alive.
Another issue, aside from the whole medical bodily autonomy thing, is that of costs to the unwilling mother.
If the mother doesn't want the child, and abortion is not allowed, should she be able to sign a form basically saying "this child belongs to the state" with the state picking up 100% of the cost for medical treatment of the pregnancy and childbirth? All this talk about fetal viability at 24 weeks ignores the huge cost of healthcare in the US. I paid over $10,000 for 5 days of NICU, with only one of them being on a vent
Well, they succeeded in having so much gak out there that nobody is really talking about Scott Pruitt probably illegally skimming from his Oklahoma campaign funds, Pence's White House doctor resigning over issues with the former Trump physician, the VA running out of money, etc etc etc.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.
the USA.
I should have specified abortion up to 24 weeks excluding medical reasons. Many countries have the medical reasons exception. Looking at CDC statistics the amount of people in the US that have an abortion after 24 weeks is absolutely tiny.
I am just answering the question.
I know, but I guess my question was confusing because in the Netherlands when we talk about abortion we say the limit is 24 weeks by law. But that doesn't mean 24+ weeks isn't allowed without sufficient medical reason.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.
the USA.
I should have specified abortion up to 24 weeks excluding medical reasons. Many countries have the medical reasons exception. Looking at CDC statistics the amount of people in the US that have an abortion after 24 weeks is absolutely tiny.
I am just answering the question.
I know, but I guess my question was confusing because in the Netherlands when we talk about abortion we say the limit is 24 weeks by law. But that doesn't mean 24+ weeks isn't allowed without sufficient medical reason.
Yeah, and to be fair, the main reason why the vast majority of abortion laws are struck down in the US is because there is no exception to the ban and the most extreme argument boils down to "it doesn't matter that she's a 13 year old girl that was raped by her father, that the child has severe birth defects due to the incest, and that she is suffering severe pregnancy complications that will likely kill her. None of that is the fault of the child and she cannot be allowed to terminate. If both die, then at least we know it was God's will."
I don't know if the absolute refusal by so many people to include incest/rape/health exemptions to abortion bans is because of an absolute refusal to compromise their own ideas about life, or if it is a well calculated way to be able to continue to campaign against abortion while knowing that you will never have to actually deal with the consequences of the laws you pass because you know they will be struck down, which in turn lets you continue to campaign on the same issue for the next 20 years. By passing the extreme versions of the abortion restrictions that will be struck down, they are also able to frame it as a "they want ALL abortion to be legal" because when the extreme laws get struck down there are no sensible laws left to take their place. So it's "protect all babies" vs "kill all babies", and extreme positions are easier to campaign on in a partisan environment.
I'm guessing that quite a lot of people are in the same camp I am in: pro-choice, but let us do everything we can to create a caring and nurturing environment where women will choose life. Make sure the support systems are in place for mother and child well past the "get it out of her vagina" stage.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.
From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?
Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.
Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.
That's a false choice. Not having an abortion doesn't compel anyone to raise the child. A woman can give birth and then give the baby up for adoption.
They can. However, that point was in response to an earlier comment in the thread about sex and choice and consequences, and even with an adoption, there are costs and risks to the mother (childbirth can be fatal), costs and risks the mother alone bears.
To expand on adoption however, while great and amazing and I in no way denigrate that, it is not a cure-all. There are not enough willing parents for all potential abortions, not by an order of magnitude, and just expecting there to be an adoption for every child in need is naieve in the extreme, not only today but especially so in a world without access to abortion. Even moreso for children who have or would have major physical and developmental disabilities, which I get is a touchy subject for a lot of good reasons, but at the same time the stark truth is that almost nobody wants to adopt a kid with mental health issues or major physical debilitations, and we already massively fail to meet the needs of those who are born with such conditions as is much of the time.
I've got family members who were adopted and friends who have spent years and tens of thousands of dollars to adopt children. The process you have to go through to adopt children in the US is insane considering that women who are biologicially capable of having babies can have as many babies as they want with whomever they want.
That difference is one largely constructed from liability, the state or agency has assumed responsibility for the child, and the childs proper placement and may suffer consequences from poor placement, while people who naturally have children basically dont have to deal with that issue.
Nobody is ever punished with a baby because nobody is ever forced to raise one. A fetus is typically viable outside the womb around 24 weeks and that should be the cut off for abortions.
At that age the fetus is dangerously premature and will have a high likelyhood of potentially life altering medical issues. Also, viability is relative, with access to modern medical facilities and healthcare, sure 24 weeks is doable, but even then is dangerous, and there is a 30-50% mortality rate that early IIRC. Without access to healthcare? The picture changes dramatically for the worse.
That said, I can buy this argument to a certain degree, there is a merit to it, and I grant that. There is a lot of quibbling to be done over where the line should be, and thats probably what my paragraph above basically is, but as I'm not anatomically equipped to have such a procedure myself in any event, my primary retort would be that the mother still has right to her body and what it does, as below.
Once a fetus gestates to the point of being a baby that can survive without the mother then it is no longer part of her body, the baby is it's own body and person so the woman loses the right to arbitrarily kill it.
I will refer to my earlier point about personal body/property rights. If I will die without your blood or spare kidney, the state cannot compel you to give of your body to prevent my death.
It's not like premature babies aren't humans, there's an entire ward full of them at your local hospital. If a baby is born prematurely it's a baby person and is treated as such so why would a baby that's still in the womb at that time not be considered a baby and we should condone killing it?
That's a good argument, and I'm not sure I have a satisfying answer. My thoughts are basically that once actually removed from the mother and into a hospital, there is another layer of care and responsibility involved, the mothers body is no longer what is keeping the child alive and thus her ability to end the pregnancy based on her rights to her body is gone.
I know, but I guess my question was confusing because in the Netherlands when we talk about abortion we say the limit is 24 weeks by law. But that doesn't mean 24+ weeks isn't allowed without sufficient medical reason.
Yeah, and to be fair, the main reason why the vast majority of abortion laws are struck down in the US is because there is no exception to the ban and the most extreme argument boils down to "it doesn't matter that she's a 13 year old girl that was raped by her father, that the child has severe birth defects due to the incest, and that she is suffering severe pregnancy complications that will likely kill her. None of that is the fault of the child and she cannot be allowed to terminate. If both die, then at least we know it was God's will."
I don't know if the absolute refusal by so many people to include incest/rape/health exemptions to abortion bans is because of an absolute refusal to compromise their own ideas about life, or if it is a well calculated way to be able to continue to campaign against abortion while knowing that you will never have to actually deal with the consequences of the laws you pass because you know they will be struck down, which in turn lets you continue to campaign on the same issue for the next 20 years. By passing the extreme versions of the abortion restrictions that will be struck down, they are also able to frame it as a "they want ALL abortion to be legal" because when the extreme laws get struck down there are no sensible laws left to take their place. So it's "protect all babies" vs "kill all babies", and extreme positions are easier to campaign on in a partisan environment.
I'm guessing that quite a lot of people are in the same camp I am in: pro-choice, but let us do everything we can to create a caring and nurturing environment where women will choose life. Make sure the support systems are in place for mother and child well past the "get it out of her vagina" stage.
That's a good point. Many of the standard bearers don't seem firm believers either. We have the same no rape/incest exclusion group but they are politically too small to achieve anything. Surprisingly similar to US evangelists though.
I share the camp you're in. I think around 75% of US abortions occur due to financial reasons. Solving those structural financial issues is going to be a lot easier than blanket banning abortion.
To expand on adoption however, while great and amazing and I in no way denigrate that, it is not a cure-all. There are not enough willing parents for all potential abortions, not by an order of magnitude, and just expecting there to be an adoption for every child in need is naieve in the extreme, not only today but especially so in a world without access to abortion. Even moreso for children who have or would have major physical and developmental disabilities, which I get is a touchy subject for a lot of good reasons, but at the same time the stark truth is that almost nobody wants to adopt a kid with mental health issues or major physical debilitations, and we already massively fail to meet the needs of those who are born with such conditions as is much of the time.
That is definitely an issue. There are some amazing human being out there who make the choice to adopt and provide a loving and caring home for kids with some extreme needs out there, knowing full and well that they will have to care for this child for decades and decades long after other children would be in the world on their own. As much as I think of myself as a decent human being, I don't think I could just choose to do what they are doing.
But for every person like that, there are also plenty of potential adoptive parents out there who don't have a desire to adopt a "defective" child.
Just to add, I looked up CDC statistics on abortion and Dutch statistics. Even though the US doesn't have a hard cap in some states, the amount of abortions after 21 weeks as the CDC registers is tiny.
The CDC notes that abortion after 21 weeks concerns about 1.2-1.3% of all abortions, about 6000.
The Netherlands, a country with 1/20th of the people has a 3% abortion rate after 21 weeks of about a 1000 women.
So for a country 1/20th of the sizeof the US we only have 1/6 less in abortions after 21 weeks with a abortion law cap of 24 weeks excluding medical reasons. Somewhere down the line it seems you have to admit that putting an arbitrary number of weeks on it isn't helping.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: But for every person like that, there are also plenty of potential adoptive parents out there who don't have a desire to adopt a "defective" child.
There are also plenty of people who don't want to adopt anything older than a baby. There are whole cottage industries geared towards producing babies for Western adoption, even while many slightly older children get left behind in the system because of their age.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is lots of talk about the ethical and moral issues of abortion. But from a legal aspect it's pretty cut and dry.
whembly wrote: You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".
No, she should have led with an actual explanation of why Trump decided to fire the FBI director less than half way through his tenure. This is how functioning human beings work - when asked why they took major decisions, they give explanations, because people don't want to be seen as crazy lunatics who do things for no good reason.
The only reason not to give that explanation is because the actual reason would demonstrate obstruction of justice.
Even if the reason given is 'Because Trump felt he had an antagonistic relationship with the head of the FBI, and wanted to move beyond that' - no lies, and accurately conveys part of the cause for discord - without saying which side was acting in an antagonistic fashion.
Instead... we got what we got.
After Trump is done, I don't think there will be much left of Sander's career - 'Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold. For Dickon, thy master, is bought and sold'
The Auld Grump - but I needed to buy a Cone of Silence for my home!
So, are we really going with that Press Secretary shouldn't lie/spin for the President? Really?
Okay.
Well... I mean... it's *not* okay. But be honest here... every Press Secretary does it.... and EVERY Press Secretary will do so in the future.
Frankly, it's turning into a gak show (long before el Trumpo) such that we might as well as go old school: Reporters submit questions in writing, and the Press Office submits answers in writing later in the day (after which being fully and properly vetted).
Would have been nice if you had considered what I actually wrote... but if you are a Republican at this point in time, I can understand starting off on the defensive.
The problem is that elTrumpo and Co. are not even bothering to coordinate their lies - so you end up with several different versions floating around, as well as 'alternative facts'.
Where one of his administration says he was at a meeting and Trump never said something, while Trump himself is going on the air and boasting that he had actually said it.
Not only are they liars, they aren't even very good at it.
A good Press Secretary actually doesn't lie very often - and usually complains when they have to do so. Jay Carney, for example, said that he couldn't even imagine Obama asking him to lie.
In part because Obama had enough foresight to know that lies will be uncovered, and then be highlighted.
Lies have a very bad tendency to come back to bite you in the behind - evasion and spin are much safer means.
Coming out and boasting that you had the biggest inauguration, ever, when it was among the smallest since Jimmy Carter, not so much.
Save the lies for when they will best serve your purposes, not when you just want your name in glowing letters.
So, be honest here, Sanders et ali go far beyond what 'every press secretary' does, and are trying to keep up with an erratic President that does not bother to coordinate with the people trying to work with him.
TheAuldGrump wrote: So, be honest here, Sanders et ali go far beyond what 'every press secretary' does, and are trying to keep up with an erratic President that does not bother to coordinate with the people trying to work with him.
I don't even know if calling it lying covers it anymore, it just goes straight into propaganda and revisionism. Remember how SHS said the President had in no way ever promoted or encouraged violence? Even though we have minutes worth of clips of Trump doing just that?
Saw this earlier today, these are actual words spoken by Trump at the NRA convention today.
"Your Second Amendment rights are under siege, but they will never, ever be under siege as long as I'm your president."
So, which is it?
Prestor Jon wrote: It says right in the article that the governor hasn’t signed it yet so it’s not a law yet. It also makes it clear that the Republicans in the state legislature passed the bill in the hope that it would improve their chances in the upcoming midterm elections so the governor probably won’t sign prior to the election in order to make it easier for legislators to run on it as a campaign issue..
She signed it today. So now my state, which has been pretty moderate, now has the most restrictive abortion law in the country. My tax dollars are now going to be flushed in the toilet as they lose court challenge after court challenge defending this clearly unconstitutional law. Terrific.
Prestor Jon wrote: It says right in the article that the governor hasn’t signed it yet so it’s not a law yet. It also makes it clear that the Republicans in the state legislature passed the bill in the hope that it would improve their chances in the upcoming midterm elections so the governor probably won’t sign prior to the election in order to make it easier for legislators to run on it as a campaign issue..
She signed it today. So now my state, which has been pretty moderate, now has the most restrictive abortion law in the country. My tax dollars are now going to be flushed in the toilet as they lose court challenge after court challenge defending this clearly unconstitutional law. Terrific.
Hurray! You're #1!
At least your governor didn't take the crackpot Jade Hell conspiracy seriously.
The US is, and has always been, exceptionally great and mind-bendingly stupid at the same time (more so than the average huamn society, I mean). Isn't it kind of funny that we can be so much of both at the same time? At least I find that a man with one leg of an Olympic athelete and one leg of a polio victim manages to not only compete, but excel, hilarious on a certain philosophical level.
Ouze wrote: This has made me realize it was fun to laugh at Greg Abbott until we got our own Greg Abbott. There is a lesson in there.
Hey, it's all fun and games until you get caught trying to sell a seat in congress. No wait, that was my ex-governor Blagojevich. Why are our leaders so bad?
Prestor Jon wrote: It says right in the article that the governor hasn’t signed it yet so it’s not a law yet. It also makes it clear that the Republicans in the state legislature passed the bill in the hope that it would improve their chances in the upcoming midterm elections so the governor probably won’t sign prior to the election in order to make it easier for legislators to run on it as a campaign issue..
She signed it today. So now my state, which has been pretty moderate, now has the most restrictive abortion law in the country. My tax dollars are now going to be flushed in the toilet as they lose court challenge after court challenge defending this clearly unconstitutional law. Terrific.
I would have thought that the smart move would have been to let it wait until after midterms that would let Republican incumbents run on having passed it while making it slightly harder to mobilize opposition against it. Now Democrats will be running against and possibly get more momentum for the fall elections.
Is there anything in the state constitution that prohibits a law like this? Nebraska passed a ban on abortions after 20 weeks back in 2010 and it’s stayed on the books being enforced for the last 8 years and counting.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.
From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?
Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.
Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.
That's a false choice. Not having an abortion doesn't compel anyone to raise the child. A woman can give birth and then give the baby up for adoption.
They can. However, that point was in response to an earlier comment in the thread about sex and choice and consequences, and even with an adoption, there are costs and risks to the mother (childbirth can be fatal), costs and risks the mother alone bears.
To expand on adoption however, while great and amazing and I in no way denigrate that, it is not a cure-all. There are not enough willing parents for all potential abortions, not by an order of magnitude, and just expecting there to be an adoption for every child in need is naieve in the extreme, not only today but especially so in a world without access to abortion. Even moreso for children who have or would have major physical and developmental disabilities, which I get is a touchy subject for a lot of good reasons, but at the same time the stark truth is that almost nobody wants to adopt a kid with mental health issues or major physical debilitations, and we already massively fail to meet the needs of those who are born with such conditions as is much of the time.
I've got family members who were adopted and friends who have spent years and tens of thousands of dollars to adopt children. The process you have to go through to adopt children in the US is insane considering that women who are biologicially capable of having babies can have as many babies as they want with whomever they want.
That difference is one largely constructed from liability, the state or agency has assumed responsibility for the child, and the childs proper placement and may suffer consequences from poor placement, while people who naturally have children basically dont have to deal with that issue.
Nobody is ever punished with a baby because nobody is ever forced to raise one. A fetus is typically viable outside the womb around 24 weeks and that should be the cut off for abortions.
At that age the fetus is dangerously premature and will have a high likelyhood of potentially life altering medical issues. Also, viability is relative, with access to modern medical facilities and healthcare, sure 24 weeks is doable, but even then is dangerous, and there is a 30-50% mortality rate that early IIRC. Without access to healthcare? The picture changes dramatically for the worse.
That said, I can buy this argument to a certain degree, there is a merit to it, and I grant that. There is a lot of quibbling to be done over where the line should be, and thats probably what my paragraph above basically is, but as I'm not anatomically equipped to have such a procedure myself in any event, my primary retort would be that the mother still has right to her body and what it does, as below.
Once a fetus gestates to the point of being a baby that can survive without the mother then it is no longer part of her body, the baby is it's own body and person so the woman loses the right to arbitrarily kill it.
I will refer to my earlier point about personal body/property rights. If I will die without your blood or spare kidney, the state cannot compel you to give of your body to prevent my death.
It's not like premature babies aren't humans, there's an entire ward full of them at your local hospital. If a baby is born prematurely it's a baby person and is treated as such so why would a baby that's still in the womb at that time not be considered a baby and we should condone killing it?
That's a good argument, and I'm not sure I have a satisfying answer. My thoughts are basically that once actually removed from the mother and into a hospital, there is another layer of care and responsibility involved, the mothers body is no longer what is keeping the child alive and thus her ability to end the pregnancy based on her rights to her body is gone.
I used 24 week mark because that’s the answer you get when you google When is a fetus viable outside the womb? I’m not a doctor or an expert so there could be a better cut off date to use. The point I’m trying to make is that obviously gestation leads to changes over time from fertilized egg —> clump of cells —> fetus —> tiny person meaning that at some point the pregnancy creates a second (or more in the case of multiples) person that can survive independently of the mother. If a baby is viable without the mother it’s better to take it out early so it can live than kill it.
In regards to birth defects and healthcare costs you’re right they can be very burdensome and expensive. However those issues aren’t used to discourage deliberate pregnancies. While I agree that bringing a child into the world when you can’t afford to properly care for it is bad it’s not like the state requires means testing to allow people to have babies. People in poverty with inadequate or no health insurance are free to have as many babies as they want. Babies born into bad situations isn’t good but abortion isn’t the only or best means to prevent that scenario from happening.
Abortions are decreasing over time and as has been mentioned previously abortions after 24 weeks are extremely rare. It’s not difficult to avoid getting pregnant and I doubt anyone ever wants to need an abortion so that’s not a surprising trend to me. I think society should focus on discouraging unplanned pregnancies, help struggling people improve their lives, allow abortions within the first few months of a pregnancy and protect developed tiny humans that aren’t not people just because they’re still in the womb.
Frazzled wrote: Now you want to get weird, let's start talking about designer babies. Scary stuff.
Edit : daughter starts talking about CRISPR and the gak gets real man.
Wait till I get the money for that super Soldier program, man. If you think the world is messed up with brainwashed religious nutjobs, wait till I get to unleash brainwashed Native American genetic supermen. Nazis will quail in fear as they find that the true Master Race is Red! Hail Hydra!
Kilkrazy wrote: Less than 2% of abortions take place after 20 weeks. The exact figures depend on the period and area you look at.
Such late abortions are usually done for medical reasons, such as a non-viable embryo or serious risk to the mother.
Thus, the Republican obsession with late abortions is a shibboleth which has more to do with virtue signalling than real world health policy.
Right, the point is that it is legal for states to place a cut off at week X for at will abortions that aren’t a medical emergency. Since it’s legal to have such a cut off then all that’s left to decide is what is the appropriate X number of weeks? It’s legal to put restrictions on abortion what needs to be determined is what those restrictions should be. Man, that line of reasoning sounds eerily familiar.
Realistically, any law that deals with “x weeks = viability” is pretty stupid from a medical and scientific standpoint.
Yes, generally speaking the point of viability has moved forward with the advances in medicine. Over the past decades we’ve managed to shave off a couple weeks, and we have the ability to keep a child born at 22 weeks gestation alive in the NICU.
My issues with focusing on using “viability” boil down to:
1) They are a based on best case scenarios. In a pregnancy where everything has gone right to that point, with a mother and fetus as healthy as possible, a child born extremely premature has a shot at surviving. If the mother isn’t healthy and the child hasn’t developed as well as others, it won’t have the same chances at surviving until much later in the pregnancy. Which also has to do with:
2) # Weeks gestation is a somewhat poor indicator of fetal development, and an even poorer indicator of fetal survival chances. Fetal weight and birth weight are much more accurate measures to predict the stages of development and chances for survival. I don’t deal with pregnancies and birth, so this is from memory, but I want to say that neonatal interventions in extreme pre-term births basically come down to putting the newborn on a scale and see if made it past the 500 g point to determine if it’s worth the effort to keep it alive. Prior to that point the body just isn’t developed enough to make it. But children born to mothers in poverty, minority parents, without prenatal care, and other risk factors have lower birthweights as a group. During fetal development their children would reach the weight at which they are viable at a later point than others. Even at full term their health outcomes are negatively affected by their lower weight, and this problem just gets worse for pre-term births.
3) Being able to be kept alive doesn’t equal quality of life. Sure, this argument might cross over into the death panels category. But it’s also a question we deal with every day for all our patients. Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. Pre-term children often have lifelong complications, from simple things like always being on the low end of the growth curve and having some minor developmental delays from severe physical and mental impairments requiring a lifetime of care at a minimal quality of life. Yeah, we can keep a child alive at 24 weeks, but that child may never be more than a drooling body on a ventilator with no awareness of anything. Again, birth weights and maternal health has a bigger impact on this than simply relying on gestational age. I’m not saying that we should abort children because they might have poor health outcomes as pre-term births, but I do want to paint a clear picture of what “being viable” really means. It doesn’t mean that a child born at that age means a healthy baby, it just means that it has a higher than 50% shot at surviving regardless of the type of life it might have. I’m also trying to find what “survival” is defined as (made it to discharge, random age, etc).
Viability is a complex medical concept, and I don’t know that it’s wise to give the power to determine what is viability to legislators and set a somewhat arbitrary number when the reality depends on a case-by-case basis.
Grey Templar wrote: You're making the mistake that being against the current way Sex Ed is implemented is being against Sex Education of any kind. Sex Ed should be taught, but differently than most schools handle it now.
You should abstain unless you are in a committed relationship(because that is the healthiest option, both physically and emotionally). But if you do not abstain, you should use protection and birth control(and should even when you are in a relationship just for safety). But you should understand that protection and birth control are not 100% effective, so by using them you take on the risk of an undesired pregnancy or STD, have some free condoms if you want them. Abortion should not be taught as a "Get out of Jail Free Card" like it is now. You made the choice to have sex and got pregnant, with or without birthcontrol, you have to live with the consequences of having a baby. Weather you keep it or give it up for adoption. We should of course funnel more money into adoption and programs to help struggling mothers, not encourage them to kill their babies for the crime of simply existing. Abortion should be limited to only being performed in the event of life threatening complications where it is impossible to save both the baby and the mother.
Sex Ed should also involve the parents and not be just handled by the schools without parental involvement. If you had a sex ed day at school and required the parents to be involved when their child's turn comes up would be ideal.
My question is, if a woman is irresponsible enough to have sex without birth control, by what magic is she going to become a responsible mother and raise a responsible child? Sometimes it's better for society to erase the mistake an irresponsible person makes.
Especially when paying for adding a million kids a year into foster care or welfare system will wind up costing us over 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars a year after 18 years... before inflation. And that doesn't include any welfare costs for the kids when they become adults.
And yes, the kids born after an abortion ban will, in the vast majority, be born to poor families and therefore eligible for welfare if not given up to the foster care system. Middle-class and rich women will just travel to wherever abortion is legal (China, if nowhere else) and get their abortions anyway. So is it really worthwhile to demand large numbers of ADDITIONAL poor children be born, just so the very people demand they be born can then scorn them as welfare leeches?
As far as involving parents in sex education, there's a problem with that. Far too many received a sex education that basically consisted of "DON'T!", and are themselves completely unfamiliar with anything involving sex and birth control except the bare mechanics of the act. And worse, they think that's all that's needed... even if they fell into the honey trap and had kids way too early and really made a mess of their lives AND the lives of their kids because of their ignorance. Why? Because 'Comprehensive sex education is liberals giving kids permission to have sex!'... as if kids NEED permission to have sex.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.
The baby is innocent of the crime. Only the rapist in this scenario has any blame.
Aborting a rape baby just creates two victims instead of one. You murder an innocent human being and have a victimized women.
Frankly, your position that the baby is also guilty of the rape and must be punished with death is the disgusting one. Thats a bigger punishment than the rapist would receive.
I'm not in agreement with demanding the genes of a rapist be preserved at his victim's expense.
Basically, what you propose is demanding a woman who has been raped live with the evidence of that rape for nine months. You demand she allow her body to undergo a fairly dangerous physical process - and bear in mind that America has THE WORST rate of pregnancy related deaths in the developed world - regardless of her ability to pay for the medical care required. You demand she potentially lose her job (especially if her job involves physical labor), and with it everything she owns. You demand that she deal with all the emotional and physical trauma of an unwanted pregnancy ON TOP OF the emotional and physical trauma of being raped.
I do not approve.
If she CHOOSES to keep the child of her rape, that's her choice. But I will be DD, sir, before I let society rape her continuously for nine months after some animal raped her and got her pregnant.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.
The baby is innocent of the crime. Only the rapist in this scenario has any blame.
Aborting a rape baby just creates two victims instead of one. You murder an innocent human being and have a victimized women.
Frankly, your position that the baby is also guilty of the rape and must be punished with death is the disgusting one. Thats a bigger punishment than the rapist would receive.
I'm not in agreement with demanding the genes of a rapist be preserved at his victim's expense.
Basically, what you propose is demanding a woman who has been raped live with the evidence of that rape for nine months. You demand she allow her body to undergo a fairly dangerous physical process - and bear in mind that America has THE WORST rate of pregnancy related deaths in the developed world - regardless of her ability to pay for the medical care required. You demand she potentially lose her job (especially if her job involves physical labor), and with it everything she owns. You demand that she deal with all the emotional and physical trauma of an unwanted pregnancy ON TOP OF the emotional and physical trauma of being raped.
I do not approve.
If she CHOOSES to keep the child of her rape, that's her choice. But I will be DD, sir, before I let society rape her continuously for nine months after some animal raped her and got her pregnant.
feeder wrote: I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
I could get behind this. Viability occurs sometime around 23 weeks. Yes, a bare handful have survived a week or two earlier; many more did not survive.
The majority (64.0%) of abortions are performed at or before 8 weeks' gestation, most (91.7%) are performed at or before 13 weeks' gestation and few abortions (7.0%) are performed at 14–20 weeks' gestation. Very few (1.3%) abortions are performed at or after 21 weeks' gestation... almost always for medical reasons, not as retroactive birth control.
In short, the conditions that already exist in America and do not need to be further legislated.
Vulcan wrote: My question is, if a woman is irresponsible enough to have sex without birth control, by what magic is she going to become a responsible mother and raise a responsible child? Sometimes it's better for society to erase the mistake an irresponsible person makes.
Let's not forget the irresponsible man who wanted to get his rocks off so badly that he never considered protection. It does take two to tango, as they say.
Sex ed is a bogeyman for many conservative (often religious) people in many countries, not just the USA. Their basic reasoning seems to be that their nice kid will never do something she (or he) didn't hear about from them, so forbidding sex ed makes the kids safer. Not mentioning sex means that they won't do it, because of reasons. But it's one of the most basic needs of humans - and other life on this planet - and people WILL try it even if they don't fully understand what it means. IMO it's better to tell them how to do it responsibly, without forgetting to tell them they don't HAVE to just because their best friend brags about doing it.
Prestor Jon wrote: It says right in the article that the governor hasn’t signed it yet so it’s not a law yet. It also makes it clear that the Republicans in the state legislature passed the bill in the hope that it would improve their chances in the upcoming midterm elections so the governor probably won’t sign prior to the election in order to make it easier for legislators to run on it as a campaign issue..
She signed it today. So now my state, which has been pretty moderate, now has the most restrictive abortion law in the country. My tax dollars are now going to be flushed in the toilet as they lose court challenge after court challenge defending this clearly unconstitutional law. Terrific.
Can you file a lawsuit suing the governor and legislature for wasting your tax money in this manner?
With a decent sex ed program, sure. But if you deny all knowledge, then kids won't know how to do it safely.
Amazingly, despite 5000 years of human life accumulating knowledge in the field of child rearing, we still haven't learned that "just don't do it" is a clear message to the young that they should go right out and do exactly what we just told them not to
With a decent sex ed program, sure. But if you deny all knowledge, then kids won't know how to do it safely.
I agree completely. That’s the big problem with politicizing sex Ed or any kind of Ed (or anything else really) as soon as it becomes about political narratives the important things like efficacy and pragmatism go out the window. I’m fine with teaching sex Ed in whatever manner actually gets the results of low rates of teen pregnancy/unplanned pregnancy and reduced incidence of STDs.
While we're on the subject of rape victims and sex education, that's another failing of abstinence-only sex ed. It doesn't teach girls what to do if they ARE raped. It just teaches them that being raped means they are now spoiled and no 'good' man will want them.
Ouze wrote: This has made me realize it was fun to laugh at Greg Abbott until we got our own Greg Abbott. There is a lesson in there.
Hey, it's all fun and games until you get caught trying to sell a seat in congress. No wait, that was my ex-governor Blagojevich. Why are our leaders so bad?
Vaktathi wrote:I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.
From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?
Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.
Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.
"My Body, My Choice......until I decide I want those child support gibsmedats. Then YOU have no choice, bucko. Pay up!"
I personally know women (and one guy) who collected child support on their kids.....and STILL raised them on Welfare, EBT, and WIC up to a point. And blew the money on themselves, or on non-essentials for the kids. One woman who frequented a store I patronized would go in every month and blow all 800 bucks of her child support check on the State lottery. I asked her one night about that, and asked if that money would be better spent on the kids it was intended for. She responded in a huffy manner that "I don't need dat. Uncle Suga is raisn' mah kids."
I had a buddy (Rest in peace, Jay. You'll be missed) who fell on hard times, went to social services and the courts to ask for an adjustment until he got back on his feet. They refused, implying that he was just another "deadbeat dad" trying to get out of his obligations. His ex-wife was in the goddamned USAF and remarried, and they still wouldn't cut the guy any slack. He ended up in prison for a while because he ended up selling dope for a couple of big time local "kingpins", just to pay his bills and meet his child support obligations. The man was literally living off of dollar box Mac and Cheese and ramen noodles like a 20 year old broke college kid, and only got meat because people in the community (myself included) gave him fish and deer meat that they caught/killed in season. He tried to get help from social services to buy groceries and get medicaid. He was turned down because he "made too much money".
A relative of mine's husband also got caught in the web of blatant abuse of the child support system. He is a tradesman and remarried (to my cousin). He has a young son and daughter from his previous marriage. When his daughter was 18 years old, he was still forced to pay child support on her until she was 21. She was a lazy little bitch that didn't want to work because daddy was paying for her partying and tattoos, and momma was shacked up with Mister Moneybags that bought her nice cars and condo rentals at the beach. Nothing he did or said to social services of the courts made any difference, and he would have been in jail more than he was for late child support if it wasn't for his second wife trying to help him out.
That is why I firmly believe that the child support system as it stands is outmoded and needs to be reformed, with more oversight and scrutiny over how the money is spent by the recipient. And it needs to be flexible enough to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Also, when a kid hits 18 years of age, that should be the cutoff. They are old enough to fend for themselves, being at their legal majority.
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
Smallergovernment... not tiny.
I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care? Have you fostered or adopted a child? Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves? Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things
You're making the mistake that being against the current way Sex Ed is implemented is being against Sex Education of any kind. Sex Ed should be taught, but differently than most schools handle it now.
You should abstain unless you are in a committed relationship(because that is the healthiest option, both physically and emotionally). But if you do not abstain, you should use protection and birth control(and should even when you are in a relationship just for safety). But you should understand that protection and birth control are not 100% effective, so by using them you take on the risk of an undesired pregnancy or STD, have some free condoms if you want them. Abortion should not be taught as a "Get out of Jail Free Card" like it is now. You made the choice to have sex and got pregnant, with or without birthcontrol, you have to live with the consequences of having a baby. Weather you keep it or give it up for adoption. We should of course funnel more money into adoption and programs to help struggling mothers, not encourage them to kill their babies for the crime of simply existing. Abortion should be limited to only being performed in the event of life threatening complications where it is impossible to save both the baby and the mother.
Sex Ed should also involve the parents and not be just handled by the schools without parental involvement. If you had a sex ed day at school and required the parents to be involved when their child's turn comes up would be ideal.
The very reason that you mentioned ('get out of jail free' card) is why I'm opposed to abortion on demand, even though birth control was the driving force behind Roe v. Wade, and the court's questionable conclusions that led to their ruling, from the start. Abortion should be done in hospitals, not abortuaries (aka "family planning clinics"). And it should only be performed in the case of medical emergencies or rape-induced pregnancy (and only after the rape is determined to have taken place by a police investigation, not on word alone). Abortion is just another way of getting out of responsibility for one's actions. People want to play, but they don't want to pay.
And I also agree (in part) with the above regarding sex education. My view is that it's the responsibility of the parents to talk to their kids about the "birds and the bees", and not the State using tax payer dollars to do what parents should be doing (i.e. raising their damned spawn) to begin with. But if there is to be comprehensive sexual education in schools, then I agree that the parents need to be involved 100%.
However, considering the "it won't happen to me" mindset of the eternally invincible, know-it-all typical teenager, I expect school sex ed programs will be about as effective as the parents trying to talk sense to the kids about sex (and banging their heads against the proverbial brick wall in the process).
oldravenman3025 wrote: [
However, considering the "it won't happen to me" mindset of the eternally invincible, know-it-all typical teenager, I expect school sex ed programs will be about as effective as the parents trying to talk sense to the kids about sex (and banging their heads against the proverbial brick wall in the process).
Demonstrably false. Comprehensive sex education programmes in schools greatly reduce teen pregnancy and std transmission.
Your mistake is assuming that the parents all have knowledge of std transmission, contraception availability and effectiveness, etc.
Many of them will not and will not do research to find out.
Which is why well trained teachers are necessary.
And what is your burden of proof for determining whether rape took place to allow abortion? Does it need a conviction? What is the average length of a rape trial? What about appeals?
oldravenman3025 wrote: And it should only be performed in the case of medical emergencies or rape-induced pregnancy (and only after the rape is determined to have taken place by a police investigation, not on word alone). Abortion is just another way of getting out of responsibility for one's actions.
Good idea! I wonder how hard it is to abort a 1 year old based on how long it takes for law enforcement to even properly process rape kits
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: And what is your burden of proof for determining whether rape took place to allow abortion? Does it need a conviction? What is the average length of a rape trial? What about appeals?
You will get lucky to even get a proper case:
For years, public safety professionals and advocates have known that the majority of sexual assaults are never reported and, therefore, fail to be represented in the national crime statistics database. Using Department of Justice surveys and statistics, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAIIN) estimates that only 344 out of 1,000 sexual assaults are actually reported to law enforcement. This translates into approximately 2 out of 3 sexual assaults never being reported to authorities.
....
There are tens of thousands of untested rape kits sitting in the evidence rooms of the country’s approximate 18,000 police departments. No one knows the exact number of untested kits, because few jurisdictions publicly report their backlogs. In 2015, the Department of Justice estimated the national number to be as high as 400,000.
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.
Maybe that's the legalese used for current standards, but 'compelling interest' isn't enough to override things like the 13th amendment. Which is essentially the argument - that women be compelled to arduous, unreimbursed work that puts their life at risk "becuz responsibility", because some people are uncomfortable with women having autonomy.
Notably the man is not compelled to provide anything.
Oh you have done it now, prepare for incoming "a man has no choice but has to pay for it anyway" comments.
oldravenman3025 wrote: "My Body, My Choice......until I decide I want those child support gibsmedats. Then YOU have no choice, bucko. Pay up!"
Vaktathi wrote:I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.
From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?
Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.
Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.
"My Body, My Choice......until I decide I want those child support gibsmedats. Then YOU have no choice, bucko. Pay up!"
I personally know women (and one guy) who collected child support on their kids.....and STILL raised them on Welfare, EBT, and WIC up to a point. And blew the money on themselves, or on non-essentials for the kids. One woman who frequented a store I patronized would go in every month and blow all 800 bucks of her child support check on the State lottery. I asked her one night about that, and asked if that money would be better spent on the kids it was intended for. She responded in a huffy manner that "I don't need dat. Uncle Suga is raisn' mah kids."
I had a buddy (Rest in peace, Jay. You'll be missed) who fell on hard times, went to social services and the courts to ask for an adjustment until he got back on his feet. They refused, implying that he was just another "deadbeat dad" trying to get out of his obligations. His ex-wife was in the goddamned USAF and remarried, and they still wouldn't cut the guy any slack. He ended up in prison for a while because he ended up selling dope for a couple of big time local "kingpins", just to pay his bills and meet his child support obligations. The man was literally living off of dollar box Mac and Cheese and ramen noodles like a 20 year old broke college kid, and only got meat because people in the community (myself included) gave him fish and deer meat that they caught/killed in season. He tried to get help from social services to buy groceries and get medicaid. He was turned down because he "made too much money".
A relative of mine's husband also got caught in the web of blatant abuse of the child support system. He is a tradesman and remarried (to my cousin). He has a young son and daughter from his previous marriage. When his daughter was 18 years old, he was still forced to pay child support on her until she was 21. She was a lazy little bitch that didn't want to work because daddy was paying for her partying and tattoos, and momma was shacked up with Mister Moneybags that bought her nice cars and condo rentals at the beach. Nothing he did or said to social services of the courts made any difference, and he would have been in jail more than he was for late child support if it wasn't for his second wife trying to help him out.
That is why I firmly believe that the child support system as it stands is outmoded and needs to be reformed, with more oversight and scrutiny over how the money is spent by the recipient. And it needs to be flexible enough to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Also, when a kid hits 18 years of age, that should be the cutoff. They are old enough to fend for themselves, being at their legal majority.
Wow...that's a...lot of venom there. I absolutely agree that there can and should be changes to that system and how that works, there are instances of true injustice there, but at the same time, lets be real, these are outlier exceptions, not the routine norm.
The very reason that you mentioned ('get out of jail free' card) is why I'm opposed to abortion on demand, even though birth control was the driving force behind Roe v. Wade, and the court's questionable conclusions that led to their ruling, from the start. Abortion should be done in hospitals, not abortuaries (aka "family planning clinics"). And it should only be performed in the case of medical emergencies or rape-induced pregnancy (and only after the rape is determined to have taken place by a police investigation, not on word alone).
Considering that in many states the backlog on rape kit testing is literally *years*, that would not appear to be effective policy. There's 6 digits worth of untested rape kits floating about the US, every few months we see another story about thousands of untested kits found in a warehouse somewhere. Oregon for example discovered their backlog in 2015 and *hopes* to have it cleared in...2019. And that's without getting into the many issues that keep people from having the tests done in the first place (trauma, not being believed, social stigma, etc).
Abortion is just another way of getting out of responsibility for one's actions. People want to play, but they don't want to pay.
And introducing a child into the world as a punishment or as a consequence just for its own sake is about the stupidest reason to have one I can imagine, and is going to rarely result in a positive outcome for anyone, and who's going to pick up the tab for unwanted children?
People will have sex. That's a driving biological imperative. It's going to happen. People also are really bad at thinking about long term consequences in general, and lets be real, a certain subset of the population is almost entirely incapable of it. Abortions happened before Roe, and, much like with Alchohol, drugs, and in many ways guns, we can either accept there are things that prohibition doesn't work in some places, or we can vainly try and drink from a firehose, complain about other people not suffering consequences we think they should suffer for matters that are not generally the business of others', and wonder why we seem to run into problems.
And I also agree (in part) with the above regarding sex education. My view is that it's the responsibility of the parents to talk to their kids about the "birds and the bees", and not the State using tax payer dollars to do what parents should be doing (i.e. raising their damned spawn) to begin with. But if there is to be comprehensive sexual education in schools, then I agree that the parents need to be involved 100%.
However, considering the "it won't happen to me" mindset of the eternally invincible, know-it-all typical teenager, I expect school sex ed programs will be about as effective as the parents trying to talk sense to the kids about sex (and banging their heads against the proverbial brick wall in the process).
To be fair, on the flip side, given how many parents simply don't or won't, don't know themselves or aren't capable of doing so for some reason, there's a reason schools started teaching it in the first place, parents clearly were not doing a good job. Hell, my parents didn't even try until after I'd already been through sex ed courses in 5th, 7th, and 9th grades, and it was the most goddamn awkward thing in the universe for all involved that was of 0 practical value. Most people I know of the same age have similar experiences.
Ouze wrote: This has made me realize it was fun to laugh at Greg Abbott until we got our own Greg Abbott. There is a lesson in there.
Hey, it's all fun and games until you get caught trying to sell a seat in congress. No wait, that was my ex-governor Blagojevich. Why are our leaders so bad?
Because we are.
You know, I just want to re-state this in the context of the post right after it.
Oh boy I wonder where the whataboutism machine will take us with this one,
Aides to Donald Trump, the US president, hired an Israeli private intelligence agency to orchestrate a “dirty ops” campaign against key individuals from the Obama administration who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, the Observer can reveal.
People in the Trump camp contacted private investigators in May last year to “get dirt” on Ben Rhodes, who had been one of Barack Obama’s top national security advisers, and Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to Obama, as part of an elaborate attempt to discredit the deal.
The extraordinary revelations come days before Trump’s 12 May deadline to either scrap or continue to abide by the international deal limiting Iran’s nuclear programme. Jack Straw, who as foreign secretary was involved in earlier efforts to restrict Iranian weapons, said: “These are extraordinary and appalling allegations but which also illustrate a high level of desperation by Trump and [the Israeli prime minister] Benjamin Netanyahu, not so much to discredit the deal but to undermine those around it.”
One former high-ranking British diplomat with wide experience of negotiating international peace agreements, requesting anonymity, said: “It’s bloody outrageous to do this. The whole point of negotiations is to not play dirty tricks like this.”
Sources said that officials linked to Trump’s team contacted investigators days after Trump visited Tel Aviv a year ago, his first foreign tour as US president. Trump promised Netanyahu that Iran would never have nuclear weapons and suggested that the Iranians thought they could “do what they want” since negotiating the nuclear deal in 2015. A source with details of the “dirty tricks campaign” said: “The idea was that people acting for Trump would discredit those who were pivotal in selling the deal, making it easier to pull out of it.”
The very reason that you mentioned ('get out of jail free' card) is why I'm opposed to abortion on demand, even though birth control was the driving force behind Roe v. Wade, and the court's questionable conclusions that led to their ruling, from the start. Abortion should be done in hospitals, not abortuaries (aka "family planning clinics")
I think other people handled the Trumpesque doublespeak in all this, but I want to take a minute to mention that many family planning centers offer a wide variety of care. Planned Parenthood for example offers STI screenings, gynecological exams and prenatal care. Some locations have more such as hormone therapy and blood level testing for trans people.
Why the are we talking about sex as if it's some kind of crime that people need to accept the punishment for? Why is "responsibility" so important that not having a kid is unacceptable? Who cares if people are using abortion as birth control, we're talking about a blob of cells with no functioning brain and less moral value than the cockroach all of us would not hesitate a moment to kill for our convenience.
Grey Templar wrote: And having to have a baby and then give it up for adoption will not destroy anybody's life, given that plenty of women have done exactly that.
Actually earth is already overpopulated so we would need LESS humans. Forcing blop of non-thinking-non-emotional bunch of cells grow into human would increase population and in turn hasten process until resources go too short and at that point people WILL start dying.
Humans should be looking at ways to reduce population while they still can do that controlledly before crap hits the fan. And alas most of humanly ways takes time. Which means that until something has come up it would be good to try to keep growth not exploding up too fast.
Not forcing cells to become humans when not desired is a good start. That's much more humane than literally death lottery where people are deliberately killed to reduce population which is option humanity might have to start thinking in future if population growth can't be stopped. That or automatic death penalty to anybody older than X or forced sterilation to X% of women to ensure population doesn't grow or...
Oh and you are also demanding women to put her own life on line risking literal death. Over pile of cells. "Gee I get raped and then I have to risk dying in the process for added fun." Somehow I doubt all women are happy with that prospect...Are you btw even women? If not don't you think it's "bit" unfair that you are demanding women to risk dying like that? Easy to demand others to risk death when you aren't on the line for it...
Peregrine wrote: Why the are we talking about sex as if it's some kind of crime that people need to accept the punishment for? Why is "responsibility" so important that not having a kid is unacceptable? Who cares if people are using abortion as birth control, we're talking about a blob of cells with no functioning brain and less moral value than the cockroach all of us would not hesitate a moment to kill for our convenience.
For me its more " I am not willing to pay for someone elses condoms and I am not willing to pay for someone elses abortions". I dont personally agree with abortion, but I dont believe we should legislate morality either, its too subjective. BUT if someone is using it for their birth control, they should pay for it themselves.
D, sir, before I let society rape her continuously for nine months after some animal raped her and got her pregnant.
