SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Milchshake]

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.

[Rasulis]

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?

[Endus]

"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.

[Rasulis]

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?

[s_bushido]

The question is which one will the FDA follow?

The more restrictive one, presumably.

[tehdang]

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.

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.

[Mekh]

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.

[SoulForge]

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.

[Taifuu]

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.

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.

Sinema just switched to an Independent last year, for which she has gotten a lot of flak. She also stated that she would still largely be voting alongside Democrats. That was still a terrible move since she did it after she ran for election and she should have resigned. She still didn't do a complete 180.

Manchin ran on a platform that followed the majority of the Democratic platform and some things that went against it, like his support for the coal industry. Those are issues that he openly ran on. He also gets a lot of flak from his fellow Democrats. The Republican party at this time goes out of its way to be on the opposite side of pretty much any issue that the Democratic party platforms on. I know you're already aware of the information presented in these articles, but your arguments are so easy to refute I'll post them anyway:

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...joe-manchin-k/

However, in his Tulsa remarks, Biden was wrong to say that Manchin and Sinema — or any other Senate Democrat, for that matter — "voted more" with Republicans than with Biden.

FEATURED FACT-CHECK

Tweets
stated on March 11, 2023 in a tweet
Kari Lake called Trump the “fattest president since Taft” in a 2016 tweet.
truefalse
By Samantha Putterman • March 16, 2023
According to FiveThirtyEight vote tallies through May 28, both Manchin and Sinema have voted 100% with Biden. That’s not only a perfect score, but it’s a slightly higher party unity score than the ones earned by a number of liberals, including Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

[tehdang]

You chose this. You don't like it, there's exits on every floor.

Hence, when you call me upset and roundabout ask for my opinion on multiple subjects going around with other people in the thread, I declined. You don't have to get sore at people for not entering into every related topic you wish I'd cover.

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.

She's historically a swing voter. Her district has swung from Republican do Democrat and back. Her position relevant to this thread is pro-choice. That's what I'm looking for in whether or not the premature charges of flipping her positions on the issues were justified.

Telling people you're still going to get upset at them despite accepting your alternative makes the option to be in a more influential position (the vote that could make a supermajority) much more attractive.

Sinema just switched to an Independent last year, for which she has gotten a lot of flak. since she did it after she ran for election and she should have resigned.

Manchin ran on a platform that followed the majority of the Democratic platform and some things that went against it, like his support for the coal industry. Those are issues that he openly ran on. He also gets a lot of flak from his fellow Democrats.

So you're agreeing with me that she might as well join the opposite party, since every alternative option still gets the flak.

She also stated that she would still largely be voting alongside Democrats. That was still a terrible move

Outlets like the Charlotte Observer observed that Cotham was already a swing vote on some issues. She stated that she'd research the bills and the legislation before her to decide how to vote. So in terms of the statements she's made, she's in line with previous actions as a Democrat. You're still acting like the -D or -R matters more than what she actually does in office. Premature panic does nobody any good.

[Taifuu]

So you're agreeing with me that she might as well join the opposite party, since every alternative option still gets the flak.

That statement only makes sense if she isn't getting flak for joining the Republican party, but she is. So the correct statement, the one that multiple people have consistently pointed out and that you, the swell person always posting in good faith seem to just have a rough time grasping, is that "All options lead to the same result, so if she were principled, she would have become an Independent." You're welcome.

[Mekh]

Hence, when you call me upset and roundabout ask for my opinion on multiple subjects going around with other people in the thread, I declined. You don't have to get sore at people for not entering into every related topic you wish I'd cover.

You call me sore but don't seem to have it in you anymore to defend your own party's ghoulish policies anymore. Instead you are sidetracking the whole thread with this other thing. If you want to discuss the traitor-grifter, make a new topic about her. Please post constructively.

[Paranoid Android]

Rep. Tony Gonzales on CNN: "I have 6 children. I'm a prolific pro-lifer."

Psst! Conservatives think of women as baby receptacles.

Rep. Tony Gonzales: "Women have a whole lot more other issues than just abortion. Let's have those real conversations. And let's talk about the other things that are happening in this world."

You see women I'm going to tell you what you should be thinking about. Don't think women, just listen. Plus women can't have multiple issues is what this guy is saying.

[Endus]

Rep. Tony Gonzales on CNN: "I have 6 children. I'm a prolific pro-lifer."

Psst! Conservatives think of women as baby receptacles.

Hilariously, the implication there is he didn't want any of those 6 kids, but because he's a "prolific pro-lifer", he couldn't push to have them aborted, so now he's stuck with kids he never wanted.

If he wanted the kids, his position on abortion rights would never have been relevant.

"Look, I hate my fuckin' kids and having to put up with their shit, right? But I'm a pro-lifer; my only alternative was aborting 'em, and I'd rather have my useless goddamned spawn bleed me dry than respect women."

[Rasulis]

Hilariously, the implication there is he didn't want any of those 6 kids, but because he's a "prolific pro-lifer", he couldn't push to have them aborted, so now he's stuck with kids he never wanted.

If he wanted the kids, his position on abortion rights would never have been relevant.

"Look, I hate my fuckin' kids and having to put up with their shit, right? But I'm a pro-lifer; my only alternative was aborting 'em, and I'd rather have my useless goddamned spawn bleed me dry than respect women."

This is the insane part of the interview.

"The House Republicans have the power of the purse, and if the administration wants to not heed this ruling, not live up to this ruling, then we're going to have a problem, and it may be a come to a point where House Republicans on the appropriation side have to defund FDA programs that don't make sense."

I truly want to see the GOP do this and see how it will play in the 2024 elections.

[Nymrohd]

Sinema just switched to an Independent last year, for which she has gotten a lot of flak. She also stated that she would still largely be voting alongside Democrats. That was still a terrible move since she did it after she ran for election and she should have resigned. She still didn't do a complete 180.

Manchin ran on a platform that followed the majority of the Democratic platform and some things that went against it, like his support for the coal industry. Those are issues that he openly ran on. He also gets a lot of flak from his fellow Democrats. The Republican party at this time goes out of its way to be on the opposite side of pretty much any issue that the Democratic party platforms on. I know you're already aware of the information presented in these articles, but your arguments are so easy to refute I'll post them anyway:

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...joe-manchin-k/

The thing is, if certain important bills are never brought forward for a vote because the Dems know they will fail since those two have clearly stated they will not vote for them, then they would technically not count, would they? While a Senator voting against a pro-corporate bill that would get support from multiple Republican Senators will be counted as breaking party unity.

[Edge-]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep...-simple-expert

Linking just so it's here: According to the Heritage Foundation (or one of their employees), RBG officiating a same-sex wedding is literally no different than Clarence accepting upwards of millions of dollars in gifts and trips for free from his politically activist good buddy.

Watching conservatives desperately and frantically try to pretend Clarence's obvious and major conflict of interest/ethical compromise is anything but isn't even fun or interesting. It's just more boring modern fiction from these folks.

[Taifuu]

The thing is, if certain important bills are never brought forward for a vote because the Dems know they will fail since those two have clearly stated they will not vote for them, then they would technically not count, would they? While a Senator voting against a pro-corporate bill that would get support from multiple Republican Senators will be counted as breaking party unity.

It is not uncommon for politicians to have a couple of disagreements policy-wise with their affiliated parties. For example, there may be 10 core issues that a party is running under, and a politician might only agree with 7/10. Those 3 issues might be deal breakers, in which case it would make sense to switch to an Independent. It doesn't make sense, however, to switch to a party where you only agree with 3 of their core issues and are opposed to the other 7.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep...-simple-expert

Linking just so it's here: According to the Heritage Foundation (or one of their employees), RBG officiating a same-sex wedding is literally no different than Clarence accepting upwards of millions of dollars in gifts and trips for free from his politically activist good buddy.

Watching conservatives desperately and frantically try to pretend Clarence's obvious and major conflict of interest/ethical compromise is anything but isn't even fun or interesting. It's just more boring modern fiction from these folks.

So when executive A invites executive B to play golf and they discuss business; what is that to these people? Just two friends talking about their hobbies? Are we now supposed to pretend that rich people don't spend a ton of money trying to influence potential partners or investors? Are we at the point where only a direct monetary contribution is being counted as a bribe? I feel the only way to really test this is if Clarence spent a year voting alongside his liberal counterparts and then see if he still gets a "personal invitation from a good friend".

[Captain N]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep...-simple-expert

Linking just so it's here: According to the Heritage Foundation (or one of their employees), RBG officiating a same-sex wedding is literally no different than Clarence accepting upwards of millions of dollars in gifts and trips for free from his politically activist good buddy.

Watching conservatives desperately and frantically try to pretend Clarence's obvious and major conflict of interest/ethical compromise is anything but isn't even fun or interesting. It's just more boring modern fiction from these folks.

Didn't you know being able to officiate a wedding for those evil gays is the same as taking millions in potential bribes? Gotta keep the base riled up about that "LGBTQ Agenda".

[Edge-]

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...csp=apple-news

The Iowa Attorney General's Office has put on hold its longstanding practice of paying for emergency contraception, and in rare cases abortions, for victims of sexual assault.

Iowa law and federal regulations require the state to pay for many of the expenses facing assault survivors who seek medical help, including the costs of forensic examinations and treatments for sexually transmitted infections. Under Attorney General Tom Miller, a Democrat, the state's victim compensation fund also picked up the tab for Plan B ― the so-called "morning after" pill ― and similar treatments to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

A spokeswoman for Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird, who defeated Miller's bid for an 11th term last fall, confirmed to the Des Moines Register that payment for such costs is on hold as part of a larger review of victim services.

"While not required by Iowa law, the victim compensation fund has previously paid for Plan B and abortions. As a part of her top-down, bottom-up audit of victim assistance, Attorney General Bird is carefully evaluating whether this is an appropriate use of public funds," Bird Press Secretary Alyssa Brouillet said in a statement. "Until that review is complete, payment of these pending claims will be delayed."

Victim advocates say they weren't informed of the pause on payments, and said they hope the state will eventually resume them to ensure the victims, already dealing with the trauma of their attacks, are not left holding the bill.

Again, it's not about punishing or hurting women, that's just very very frequently the result of Republican policy decisions.

Also fun - https://www.thedailybeast.com/manspl...ristone-ruling

Abortion access has been a political issue for decades since Roe v. Wade was passed, with its precarious position taking various levels of prominence in American politics before the bombshell that was Roe’s reversal last year.

But for Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX), women who may now lack life-changing access to abortion should just move on from the issue entirely.

In an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Gonzales was asked about a Texas federal judge’s decision late Friday to suspend the FDA’s 23-year-old approval of the common abortion drug mifepristone. Gonzales tried to paint the decision as a states’ rights issue, despite a federal judge dictating it, and warned Democrats against allowing the FDA to ignore the court’s ruling.

Host Dana Bash, however, noted that the drug was also prescribed for women who suffer miscarriages, which can affect millions of women a year. (A National Library of Medicine study last year estimated that as many as 26 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriages.) That, though, did not matter to Gonzales.

“It’s important that we have real discussions on women’s healthcare and get off the abortion,” he said. “Get off the abortion conversation. Women have a whole lot more other issues than just abortion. Let’s have those real conversations, and let’s talk about—let’s talk about the other things that are happening in this world.”

...does anyone want to remind him which political party has made abortion a central tentpole policy area for their party and pushed for the recent SCOTUS ruling this thread is discussing and continue to get owned on the topic every time it comes up?

Damn man, I hope Republicans do start talking about other health care issues related to women's health. Let's talk about better access to pre and post-natal care. Let's talk about more access to preventative care including various cancer screenings. Let's talk about the lack of access to quality health care or coverage in general, which impacts girls and women just as much as men.

Shame Republicans don't seem to want to talk about those issues much, either.

- - - Updated - - -

https://newrepublic.com/post/171761/...-abortion-pill

The bombshell ruling that could take abortion pills off the national market was based in part on a “study” of anonymous posts on an anti-abortion website.

Texas federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled Friday that mifepristone, one of the medications used to induce an abortion, had been improperly approved and should be yanked from the U.S. market. Two other judges have already filed dueling injunctions to keep the drug available.

The lawsuit was filed in November by a coalition of anti-abortion groups and individuals, who specifically chose Kacsmaryk for his history of anti-abortion decisions, arguing that the Food and Drug Administration had improperly approved mifepristone for widespread use more than 20 years ago. More than 100 scientific studies show that mifepristone is safe.

In his ruling, Kacsmaryk cites a study that posits “fourteen percent of women and girls reported having received insufficient information” about the side effects of having an abortion. The study also says that “eighty-three percent of women report that chemical abortion ‘changed’ them—and seventy-seven percent of those women reported a negative change.”

That study analyzed anonymous posts on an anti-abortion website called “Abortion Changes You,” which runs a blog with stories from people who regret having abortions. The sample size is 98 blog posts, but the study authors only analyzed 54 posts and then just cherry-picked quotes from the rest.

“Perhaps this sample might not be reflective of the entire universe of women who have abortions?” suggested legal expert Adam Unikowsky, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in his Substack “Adam’s Legal Newsletter.”

“This is roughly like reporting a statistic that ‘83% of people are fans of Judge Kacsmaryk’ without mentioning that the entire sample consisted of posters on JudgeKacsmarykFanClub.com.”

What’s even more dangerous is the fact that both the website and the Institute of Reproductive Grief Care, the organization that runs the site, couch themselves in reasonable-sounding language. Founder Michaelene Fredenburg talks repeatedly about the need for a better support system for the men and women grieving pregnancy loss.

This is true. An abortion is a deeply personal choice, and it does not come without an emotional toll. There still seems to be a social taboo about discussing abortions and miscarriages, and people who experience them are often left without a network to support them.

But it should still be a choice. And one man has used a biased study to try to take that away.

Just a reminder how deeply dishonest all these fucks are. Deeply, asoundingly intellectually dishonest. Any judge taking a source like that seriously should be questioned and potentially removed from the bench, because that's indicative of some serious lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the judge.

Or that the judge knows the study cited is garbage but doesn't care because he was trained with a partisan goal in mind and will deliver partisan, activist victories for Republicans who have complained for decades about "activist judges" as they trained and installed an army of their own.