1. #6221
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain N View Post
    Wait politicians and judges attacking science in favor of their ideology? I could have sworn Ive heard that somewhere before....
    On that note.

    Kansas lawmakers approved a bill early on Friday that would require healthcare providers to tell patients that medication abortions can be reversed once started, a claim medical experts call unfounded and potentially dangerous.

    Fortunately, we have a Democrat for governor in Kansas.

    The legislation now proceeds to Kansas' Democratic Governor Laura Kelly, who is expected to veto it, potentially setting up a court challenge if the bill's Republican backers can muster a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override her veto.


    Unfortunately, I think they have that 2/3rd majority.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Texas is planning to built it's own version of China's Great Firewall?

    There is more than one way to burn a book, Ray Bradbury wrote, and the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Texas House Rep. Steve Toth brandished the equivalent of a butane torch earlier this session when he introduced House Bill 2690, legislation that seeks to ban websites that contain information about abortion — but he and Texas Republicans may find it’s harder than they think to make speech they don’t like disappear from the internet.

    Toth’s bill would make it illegal to “create, edit, upload, publish, host, maintain, or register a domain name for an internet website, platform, or other interactive computer service that assists or facilitates a person’s effort in obtaining an abortion-inducing drug.” Internet service providers themselves would be in the awkward position of enforcing the law by making “every reasonable and technologically feasible effort” to block sites with information about abortion, abortion providers, or abortion funds — keeping Texans in the dark about their health care options, essentially.

    The legislation names several websites specifically: Aid Access, Plan C, Hey Jane, and CaraFem, among them. The only way to scrub such sites from Texas’ internet is for individual ISPs to agree to block them inside the state’s borders. To achieve that goal, the bill also establishes incentives for private citizens to sue internet service providers that fail to block the sites. (Rolling Stone reached out to a number of internet service providers operating in Texas, including AT&T, EarthLink, Charter Communications/Spectrum, T-Mobile, Windstream, Viasat, and HughesNet. None responded to inquiries about the legislation and whether they will oppose it.)

    Even if internet service providers choose to comply, it will be logistically difficult to prevent individuals from accessing information they’re determined to find, says Hey Jane founder Kiki Freedman. “We do think that the technical feasibility of the bill is somewhat laughable,” says Freedman, who was an executive at Uber before starting the company, which ships abortion medication to a number of states. There are well-known tools like VPNs, for example, that allow internet users to mask their IP address and location in order to access content that might not be available in their areas.

    In addition to being a logistical challenge, the proposed law is “a total train wreck under the First Amendment,” Brian Hauss, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, tells Rolling Stone. “The whole point of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from censoring ideas or information because it disagrees with the view that’s expressed — and that’s exactly what this law is trying to do.”

    Hauss pointed to a landmark Supreme Court case, Bigelow v. Virginia, with parallels to the proposed Texas law. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in Virginia, as was “encouraging” abortion through, for example, advertisements about services in states where the procedure was legal. In 1971, Jeffrey Bigelow, editor of Charlottesville’s Virginia Weekly, was arrested for running a display ad for an abortion referral service in New York. The case ultimately made it to the Supreme Court, where a majority of justices found that the advertisement qualified as protected speech.

    “What the Supreme Court essentially said is: Virginia can’t prevent its residents from going to New York to obtain services that are lawful in New York.… The notion that a state can intentionally keep its residents ignorant about the availability of lawful services in other states was very decisively rejected by the Supreme Court in that decision,” Hauss explains.

    Jennifer Pinsof, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the private-enforcement mechanism proposed in the bill is a tactic she hasn’t seen before. “There have been other efforts to create liability for posting abortion-related info online, but the ISP-blocking aspect is new and I haven’t seen any other bills that put pressure on ISPs to block access to certain websites,” Pinsof wrote in an email. “The result will be a chilling effect on speech and a looming threat of litigation that can be used to silence those who seek to give women truthful information about their reproductive options.”

    Like Texas’ Senate Bill 8, the abortion-bounty law passed in 2021, House Bill 2690 would be enforced by private citizens, rather than the government — an effort to hamper a legal challenge to the law. (Opponents typically sue the agency charged with enforcing the law to stop its enforcement, but that is difficult if the law is meant to be enforced by citizens instead.) Toth recently proposed another bill — this one targeting drag artists — using the same bounty-hunter framework. But whether such laws will be allowed to stand remains a matter of debate: At least one state court judge has declared the private enforcement scheme unconstitutional.

    “To me, the most disturbing part of it is just how extreme these legislatures are willing to go in terms of throwing out other fundamental rights in order to attack access to health care,” Freedman says. “The goalposts are clearly shifting towards a space that is even further disconnected from the opinion of health care experts, but also the will of their voters.” A majority of Texans oppose banning abortion, according to research done by the University of Texas, with a scant 15 percent of Texans supporting a complete ban on abortion access.

    Toth dubbed his bill “The Women and Child Safety Act.” Not only is pregnancy far more dangerous than abortion — one study found women are 14 times more likely to die from childbirth than an abortion — unwanted pregnancies have also been proven to create unsafe conditions for the child. Multiple studies have found that children born from unwanted pregnancies are more likely to experience and witness domestic violence, and one 10-year study found that, for years after giving birth, women who sought and failed to terminate their pregnancies were struggling to cover basic living expenses like food, housing, and transportation, compared to similar women who were able to obtain an abortion.

    Melissa Grant, the COO of Carafem, called the inclusion of her organization in Toth’s proposed bill “not particularly surprising,” in spite of the fact that Carafem does not provide services in Texas. House Bill 2690, she says, is “about continuing to push the boundaries of what’s legal, in a restrictive way, to try to shut down the availability of people to receive legal services.”

    “It’s hard to believe that anyone would have the time or the effort to spend looking into things that seem so antithetical to [the principles] this country was founded on.… But if the ultimate impact is to try to get abortion providers distracted so that they’re fighting laws instead of serving patients, well, I suppose to some degree, they’re winning,” she says. “But our goal is to try to keep our eyes on the horizon and moving forward to help people who need us.”

    Right now, she says, she is focusing on what she can do in Texas. “What I can do [in Texas] is continue to provide … accurate information about what abortion is and what it’s not, where it is illegal in this country to access it, and reliable evidence-based information about how abortion care works, and combat misinformation that is running wild.”

  2. #6222
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Representatives aren't puppets of their national or state party structure. It also presupposes that she will abandon everything she ran on. Go back to my previous posts if you're confused about my thoughts in the event she abandons her core campaign issues.
    So yes, you do support the act of defrauding voters if it means consolidating conservative power. This word salad of yours just attempts to shift the blame from those committing fraud to the victims of fraud. How very you.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  3. #6223
    Man, I remember when the main argument against abortion was those precious state's rights. T'is interesting to see how unimportant those are now when it comes to those particular pills.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  4. #6224
    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    So yes, you do support the act of defrauding voters if it means consolidating conservative power. This word salad of yours just attempts to shift the blame from those committing fraud to the victims of fraud. How very you.
    That's a very hyperpartisan spin you're applying here. I'll echo it as an exercise. You wish to shackle representatives to their party bosses and threaten them if they dare step out of line, no exceptions. You're acting as a mouthpiece of enforced conformity. Party corruption finds a hospitable place in your worldview.

    This is entirely based on your argument that party identity, not abandoning past positions she ran on, is the measure of defrauding voters.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  5. #6225
    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    So yes, you do support the act of defrauding voters if it means consolidating conservative power. This word salad of yours just attempts to shift the blame from those committing fraud to the victims of fraud. How very you.
    Look what you have done. You have made @tehdang so upset, he absolutely failed to tell us why he supports women being forced to birth unviable fetuses, their funerals not being paid in spite of promises to the contrary or the internet of Texas being censored about the fact that abortions exist.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  6. #6226
    High Overlord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    That's a very hyperpartisan spin you're applying here. I'll echo it as an exercise. You wish to shackle representatives to their party bosses and threaten them if they dare step out of line, no exceptions. You're acting as a mouthpiece of enforced conformity.
    Inaccurate. What we want is people to stick by the platforms they ran on. You STILL haven't provided an explanation as to why switching to the Republican party was the appropriate choice over switching to being an independent. There is also the option to resign and force a special election for her district so someone who could stand up to the alleged bullying can be elected. Assuming that she doesn't vote alongside Republicans, why even join the party at that point? Is the expectation that they are going to fund her campaigns despite knowing she won't vote alongside them?

  7. #6227
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,536
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    That's a very hyperpartisan spin you're applying here. I'll echo it as an exercise. You wish to shackle representatives to their party bosses and threaten them if they dare step out of line, no exceptions. You're acting as a mouthpiece of enforced conformity. Party corruption finds a hospitable place in your worldview.

    This is entirely based on your argument that party identity, not abandoning past positions she ran on, is the measure of defrauding voters.
    Again, for the cheap and dishonest seats, the outrage is not that she dared question Democratic policies. The outrage is not that she didn't fall in line. The outrage is not even that she chose to leave the Democratic Party. The outrage is that she joined the Republicans, who actively campaign against the stated policy viewpoints she personally has expressed to her voters in the past and which led to her support from that base.

    Pospospos made no argument that "party identity" was the measure of defrauding voters. You're making that up, likely as just pure projection of your own personal biases, since there's certainly nothing in their post that would suggest that.


  8. #6228
    Quote Originally Posted by Mekh View Post
    Look what you have done. You have made @tehdang so upset, he absolutely failed to tell us why he supports women being forced to birth unviable fetuses, their funerals not being paid in spite of promises to the contrary or the internet of Texas being censored about the fact that abortions exist.
    If only my political opponents would not be so upset! If only calling points word salad made them even more eager to have more points called word salad (as the post you quoted was responding to)! I think I've heard enough trolling on the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by HeatBlast View Post
    No that's wholly in the realm of GQP voters, factually speaking.
    "You will stay in the party or you're defrauding voters" - The Best News to party corruption. She was a swing vote on some issues before, I'm sure she will be after. I don't think she's going to suddenly discover that a decade of pro-choice was just an extremely disciplined con.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taifuu View Post
    Inaccurate. What we want is people to stick by the platforms they ran on. You STILL haven't provided an explanation as to why switching to the Republican party was the appropriate choice over switching to being an independent.
    You don't like her choice of response, but you still haven't given a reason why she can't stick to her campaign promises with a different party tag. Is the -D or -R after her name or district actual predestination? Does it rob her of free will? I'm only hearing demands and knee-jerk reactionary hatred. She didn't act like you wanted, therefore such an inappropriate choice is ipso facto proof of voting treachery? I don't see it.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  9. #6229
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You don't like her choice of response, but you still haven't given a reason why she can't stick to her campaign promises with a different party tag. Is the -D or -R after her name or district actual predestination? Does it rob her of free will? I'm only hearing demands and knee-jerk reactionary hatred. She didn't act like you wanted, therefore such an inappropriate choice is ipso facto proof of voting treachery? I don't see it.
    Because damn near everything the parties stand for is the opposite of the other? This isn't hard. Being an independent means she can vote whatever way her heart desires and she can just say she's independent. Going directly to the other side is picking 180 degree opposition to Democrats. Especially in North Carolina.

  10. #6230
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If only my political opponents would not be so upset! If only calling points word salad made them even more eager to have more points called word salad (as the post you quoted was responding to)! I think I've heard enough trolling on the topic.
    So you do have nothing.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  11. #6231
    High Overlord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulForge View Post
    Because damn near everything the parties stand for is the opposite of the other? This isn't hard. Being an independent means she can vote whatever way her heart desires and she can just say she's independent. Going directly to the other side is picking 180 degree opposition to Democrats. Especially in North Carolina.
    With that line of thinking, I am not sure that Tehdang understands what a political party even is at this point.

  12. #6232
    Elemental Lord unfilteredJW's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Taifuu View Post
    With that line of thinking, I am not sure that Tehdang understands what a political party even is at this point.
    The issue is one of projection. That poster doesn’t have a shred of ethics and everything is about keeping his parties ghoul claws on power. They assume, incorrectly, that everyone else is as objectively terrible of a human being as they and their party are.

    These posts make much more sense after you realize this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Yes it is. Breaking into someone’s home and sanctuary is a violation of someone’s person. When I said rape yes I meant it. Not just having your stuff taken which is disturbing enough. Breaking into someone’s home were they and their family sleeping. Yeah rape is the appropriate comparison.
    Mall Cop thinks Home Invasion ='s Rape

  13. #6233
    Over 9000! Milchshake's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Shitposter Burn Out
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Taifuu View Post
    With that line of thinking, I am not sure that Tehdang understands what a political party even is at this point.
    The GOP is basically the political arm of Rupert Murdoch's Anus Fox News.

    These posters just enjuoy being the last guy in the Human-Centipede-of-White-Grievance.
    Government Affiliated Snark

  14. #6234
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...rtion-98441293



    JUDGE! FIGHT! JUDGE! FIGHT! JUDGE! FIGHT!

    Thank goodness the Republican party spend decades turning the judiciary into yet another political battlefield.
    This basically leaves it up to the states. The pro-abortion right states will follow the Washington State Court ruling. The anti-abortion states will follow the Texas State ruling. At least until the issue is decided at the Supreme Court. The question is which one will the FDA follow?

  15. #6235
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,536
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    "You will stay in the party or you're defrauding voters" - The Best News to party corruption.
    This isn't what people are complaining about. It wasn't her leaving the Democratic Party that's the problem. It's her joining the Republicans.

    You keep creating this false dilemma.

    She was a swing vote on some issues before, I'm sure she will be after. I don't think she's going to suddenly discover that a decade of pro-choice was just an extremely disciplined con.
    See, this is the point; if you're staunchly pro-choice, why would you ever join a party that has been adamantly anti-choice as one of their central pillars? It demonstrates a lack of conviction in that platform position, that you only ever used it as a tool to attract voters of a given party rather than through any actual support for the position. That's why people are angry; her joining the Republican Party has demonstrated that much of why people supported her in the past was, for her, a useful lie she used to manipulate voters, rather than a heartfelt belief.

    You don't like her choice of response, but you still haven't given a reason why she can't stick to her campaign promises with a different party tag. Is the -D or -R after her name or district actual predestination? Does it rob her of free will? I'm only hearing demands and knee-jerk reactionary hatred. She didn't act like you wanted, therefore such an inappropriate choice is ipso facto proof of voting treachery? I don't see it.
    Joining a party demonstrates an ideological affiliation. When all her platform positions were opposed to that party's positions in the past, it raises giant red flags as to why she'd ever join that party.

    You know this. You're just being dishonest about it.


  16. #6236
    Quote Originally Posted by Milchshake View Post
    The GOP is basically the political arm of Rupert Murdoch's Anus Fox News.

    These posters just enjuoy being the last guy in the Human-Centipede-of-White-Grievance.
    The GOP is basically Taliban lite right now. Ban abortion. Ban misoprostol. Ban interstate travel. Ban books. Ban transgender. Ban drag shows. See the trend?

  17. #6237
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The question is which one will the FDA follow?
    The more restrictive one, presumably.

  18. #6238
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulForge View Post
    Because damn near everything the parties stand for is the opposite of the other? This isn't hard. Being an independent means she can vote whatever way her heart desires and she can just say she's independent. Going directly to the other side is picking 180 degree opposition to Democrats. Especially in North Carolina.
    Manchin and Sinema go 180 degrees opposite the Dems on an incredibly wide variety of issues. I don't understand what logical basis exists to declare this cannot be true for Republicans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mekh View Post
    So you do have nothing.
    I look at the health of debate and see you're calling me upset and he's calling points word salad, and decide there's nothing more to do than let everybody get more rest before returning. Or perhaps the forum needs a different right-of-center poster to start quoting the 4-5 of y'all, do the same sort of stuff back to you (quote the post, call it word salad, and speak as if the post didn't exist in this case) so you start to understand the playing field better. I have no appetite for it.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  19. #6239
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I look at the health of debate and see you're calling me upset and he's calling points word salad, and decide there's nothing more to do than let everybody get more rest before returning. Or perhaps the forum needs a different right-of-center poster to start quoting the 4-5 of y'all, do the same sort of stuff back to you (quote the post, call it word salad, and speak as if the post didn't exist in this case) so you start to understand the playing field better. I have no appetite for it.
    You chose this. You don't like it, there's exits on every floor.

    And of course I'm calling you upset. I'd never presume to claim that you are unable to defend your party on points like forced birth of non-viable fetuses that won't get proper funerals. You have most certainly a perfectly rational explanation for why this is fine and we should in fact all vote GOP to have more of it.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  20. #6240
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Manchin and Sinema go 180 degrees opposite the Dems on an incredibly wide variety of issues. I don't understand what logical basis exists to declare this cannot be true for Republicans.
    You picked the wrong two people for this scenario.

    People are upset over Sinema as well. But she at least became an Independent.

    Manchin is in a hugely Red State. He votes the way he does because he's in a hugely Red state. If he was voting and holding the ideals of a Democrat the way others in the party do then he would have gotten replaced long ago in that state. He's also deeply in the pockets of corporations. Big time. When Manchin retires he will be replaced by a republican. Manchin declares his dislike for certain Democrat things very clearly most of the time.

    The one from North Carolina campaigned on a clearly Democrat platform. Then she changed parties.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •