Ohio voters make their voices heard.
Supreme Court Votes 6 - 3 to Overturn Casey and Roe
68,294 Views |
623 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by chazzed
tequila4kapp said:
Ohio voters make their voices heard.
It is much better for the country to vote on these issues and resolve them democratically.
It is much better for the country to vote on whether to apply a syringe to your anus. Personal rights be damned.
But keep thinking women's health care should be subject to the vote. It's working out great for you. Don't change a thing.
But keep thinking women's health care should be subject to the vote. It's working out great for you. Don't change a thing.
The constitution doesn't provide for the resolution of fundamental rights by popular vote.BearGoggles said:tequila4kapp said:
Ohio voters make their voices heard.
It is much better for the country to vote on these issues and resolve them democratically.
In the 1.5 years since the Dobbs case was decided numerous women (including girls as young as 10 years old) have had their lives irreparably damaged (including death) due to the draconian laws that the decision enabled.
When this thread started way back then, there were people who said they might not agree with the decision but that in the next decade or so there would be opportunities to moderate it through democratic means. Meanwhile, women lose fundamental rights, maternal mortality rates continue to rise and even people who the radical clerics and theocrats think won't be impacted by this law (men, women looking to conceive) are in worse positions. We have already seen a reduction in facilities providing pre-natal care and there are numerous states where the theocrats will not have to face the prospect of an unnecessary state constitutional amendment to restore a right that women have historically had that was corruptly taken from them.
Imagine if SCOTUS decided that all gun control legislation was acceptable - up to and including full bans and forfeiture - and that it was up to citizens in each state to pass a state-level constitutional amendment to restore gun rights. Years later after some states are able to pass amendments permitting some level of gun ownership would you merely say that "it is much better for the country to vote on these issues and resolve them democratically?"
The Dobbs decision continues to be a travesty and untold numbers of Americans, including men, women and children will continue to be irreparably harmed by it for years to come.
Of course, that's the rub. We all agree with the general concept of autonomy over our bodies but there's nothing explicit in the C about that concept, much less the specifics of abortion. That is exactly why Roe and it's progeny have referenced an evolving list of Amendments and Clauses for the proposition that there is a C right to abortion. Fundamental rights have to have a source. If not the C then perhaps you'd argue it's a Natural Right (though I'd be a bit surprised conceptually if you are comfortably in that zone). Rights that don't have a fundamental source are appropriately left to the body politic.Unit2Sucks said:The constitution doesn't provide for the resolution of fundamental rights by popular vote.BearGoggles said:tequila4kapp said:
Ohio voters make their voices heard.
It is much better for the country to vote on these issues and resolve them democratically.
Federalist 84 discusses this point and Hamilton's fears have been proven correct.tequila4kapp said:Of course, that's the rub. We all agree with the general concept of autonomy over our bodies but there's nothing explicit in the C about that concept, much less the specifics of abortion. That is exactly why Roe and it's progeny have referenced an evolving list of Amendments and Clauses for the proposition that there is a C right to abortion. Fundamental rights have to have a source. If not the C then perhaps you'd argue it's a Natural Right (though I'd be a bit surprised conceptually if you are comfortably in that zone). Rights that don't have a fundamental source are appropriately left to the body politic.Unit2Sucks said:The constitution doesn't provide for the resolution of fundamental rights by popular vote.BearGoggles said:tequila4kapp said:
Ohio voters make their voices heard.
It is much better for the country to vote on these issues and resolve them democratically.
But more broadly, there really is nothing sacred about enumerated rights either. It ultimately comes down to interpretation. I haven't heard anyone argue that Americans have a right to possess missiles even though the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
The current SCOTUS has been using a lot of magical thinking to decide which history to cite and which to ignore to author unpopular decisions which would never survive a popular vote. They ignored the 50 year history of Roe/Caset/etc. in order to cherry pick some other history to support their theocratic agenda. We all agree that if Leonard Leo had chosen different judges for Trump to nominate, a number of these decisions would have gone the other way. This is far more ideologically driven than it is the proper functioning of our federal government. It's certainly far from of the people, by the people, for the people.
And lest you think I'm pretending that a liberal court wouldn't be just as ideologically driven or prone to magical thinking, I'm not saying that at all. SCOTUS is an unelected body which wields power in our country. For centuries we more or less accepted that they answered to some higher standard and, with a few obvious counter-examples, generally operated in good faith for what they considered the benefit of our country, we can no longer pretend that there is enough objectivity in their rulings to matter.
So, sure, you can argue that the ninth amendment doesn't exist and that the first eight constitute an exclusive list of fundamental rights but why bother? The reality is that the law is what the radical clerics say it is. And right now, what they say is wildly out of step with our country. And the system clearly doesn't work.
tequila4kapp said:Of course, that's the rub. We all agree with the general concept of autonomy over our bodies but there's nothing explicit in the C about that concept, much less the specifics of abortion. That is exactly why Roe and it's progeny have referenced an evolving list of Amendments and Clauses for the proposition that there is a C right to abortion. Fundamental rights have to have a source. If not the C then perhaps you'd argue it's a Natural Right (though I'd be a bit surprised conceptually if you are comfortably in that zone). Rights that don't have a fundamental source are appropriately left to the body politic.Unit2Sucks said:The constitution doesn't provide for the resolution of fundamental rights by popular vote.BearGoggles said:tequila4kapp said:
Ohio voters make their voices heard.
It is much better for the country to vote on these issues and resolve them democratically.
Please loudly share your views, particularly with as many women as possible. The younger the better.
Roevember 2024 is coming fast
https://www.threads.net/@bidenharrishq/post/CzY_deGvHsY/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
https://www.threads.net/@bidenharrishq/post/CzY_deGvHsY/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
Of course there's something different about enumerated rights. They are explicitly stated as a right. That matters. The fact the limits of an enumerated right is interpreted by SCOTUS doesn't negate the fact the fundamental right is explicitly granted.
Maybe these 9 have it right. Maybe the activists of the last 70 years were wrong and our society just got collectively used to it. We have to remember there was a preceding @100 years where Judicial Activism wasn't a thing too.
BTW, I was the one who said things would moderate over time. IIRC I also said something to the effect that pro-lifers were stupidly celebrating the recent decision because there were going to be a lot of elections that went against them and that also probably enshrined a lot more than what Roe (proper) allowed.
Maybe these 9 have it right. Maybe the activists of the last 70 years were wrong and our society just got collectively used to it. We have to remember there was a preceding @100 years where Judicial Activism wasn't a thing too.
BTW, I was the one who said things would moderate over time. IIRC I also said something to the effect that pro-lifers were stupidly celebrating the recent decision because there were going to be a lot of elections that went against them and that also probably enshrined a lot more than what Roe (proper) allowed.
Do you think the right enumerated in the third amendment (quartering troops) is more important than every unenumerated right? It's literally never even been tested by SCOTUS.tequila4kapp said:
Of course there's something different about enumerated rights. They are explicitly stated as a right. That matters. The fact the limits of an enumerated right is interpreted by SCOTUS doesn't negate the fact the fundamental right is explicitly granted.
Maybe these 9 have it right. Maybe the activists of the last 70 years were wrong and our society just got collectively used to it. We have to remember there was a preceding @100 years where Judicial Activism wasn't a thing too.
BTW, I was the one who said things would moderate over time. IIRC I also said something to the effect that pro-lifers were stupidly celebrating the recent decision because there were going to be a lot of elections that went against them and that also probably enshrined a lot more than what Roe (proper) allowed.
The problem I have with your argument is that it reads the 9th amendment right out of the constitution. We are living through all of the problems envisioned by Hamilton in Federalist 84 and the irony for me is that the people who supposedly want to reduce the size and power of the federal government are the ones most in favor of a quite limited view on individual rights. There are so many rights that the founders took for granted and didn't think would need enumeration. The ones they selected were non-obvious ones - like the third amendment - but not meant to be supreme over every other right.
Imagine if a state became overwhelmingly populated by people who follow a religion that doesn't believe in modern medicine. Like if Wyoming was overrun by Christian scientists. Then imagine that they passed a law which restricted surgery and other medical care. Would you argue that the framers didn't consider healthcare to be as important as not having to quarter troops in peace time or else they would have enshrined it in the constitution? I certainly hope not. The answer is that the framers had no intention of enumerating every right.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe that we were endowed with certain unalienable rights, including bodily autonomy, and that SCOTUS has become what the GOP has always complained about. We have a court overwhelmingly occupied by radical religious clerics who are out of step with the general population who have taken to backing the theocracy while using history, etc. as a naked pretext. It's wild to me that more than 3/4 of SCOTUS are fundamentalist Catholics in a country without state sponsorship of religion. I could live with an expansive view of fundamental rights but that's not what we have - it's expansive where it suits the religious clerics and narrow where it doesn't.
tequila4kapp said:Of course, that's the rub. We all agree with the general concept of autonomy over our bodies but there's nothing explicit in the C about that concept, much less the specifics of abortion. That is exactly why Roe and it's progeny have referenced an evolving list of Amendments and Clauses for the proposition that there is a C right to abortion. Fundamental rights have to have a source. If not the C then perhaps you'd argue it's a Natural Right (though I'd be a bit surprised conceptually if you are comfortably in that zone). Rights that don't have a fundamental source are appropriately left to the body politic.Unit2Sucks said:The constitution doesn't provide for the resolution of fundamental rights by popular vote.BearGoggles said:tequila4kapp said:
Ohio voters make their voices heard.
It is much better for the country to vote on these issues and resolve them democratically.
Pretty typical behavior around here. The same posters make no real effort to engage in the argument, make specious assumptions about their own position being unequivocally correct (e.g., ignoring the entire debate as to if it is a fundamental right), ignore the countervailing arguments, then demagogue, name call, and virtue signal in a place where 90% of the posters agree with and reinforce this bad behavior.
And then, after the Roe court found a new "fundamental right to abortion" out of thin air in an act of pure judicial undemocratic arrogance, these same people will be the first to complain about what they regard as an activist conservative supreme court.
Some things will never change. The only good news is this place is not reflective of most others.
Unit2Sucks said:Do you think the right enumerated in the third amendment (quartering troops) is more important than every unenumerated right? It's literally never even been tested by SCOTUS.tequila4kapp said:
Of course there's something different about enumerated rights. They are explicitly stated as a right. That matters. The fact the limits of an enumerated right is interpreted by SCOTUS doesn't negate the fact the fundamental right is explicitly granted.
Maybe these 9 have it right. Maybe the activists of the last 70 years were wrong and our society just got collectively used to it. We have to remember there was a preceding @100 years where Judicial Activism wasn't a thing too.
BTW, I was the one who said things would moderate over time. IIRC I also said something to the effect that pro-lifers were stupidly celebrating the recent decision because there were going to be a lot of elections that went against them and that also probably enshrined a lot more than what Roe (proper) allowed.
The problem I have with your argument is that it reads the 9th amendment right out of the constitution. We are living through all of the problems envisioned by Hamilton in Federalist 84 and the irony for me is that the people who supposedly want to reduce the size and power of the federal government are the ones most in favor of a quite limited view on individual rights. There are so many rights that the founders took for granted and didn't think would need enumeration. The ones they selected were non-obvious ones - like the third amendment - but not meant to be supreme over every other right.
Imagine if a state became overwhelmingly populated by people who follow a religion that doesn't believe in modern medicine. Like if Wyoming was overrun by Christian scientists. Then imagine that they passed a law which restricted surgery and other medical care. Would you argue that the framers didn't consider healthcare to be as important as not having to quarter troops in peace time or else they would have enshrined it in the constitution? I certainly hope not. The answer is that the framers had no intention of enumerating every right.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe that we were endowed with certain unalienable rights, including bodily autonomy, and that SCOTUS has become what the GOP has always complained about. We have a court overwhelmingly occupied by radical religious clerics who are out of step with the general population who have taken to backing the theocracy while using history, etc. as a naked pretext. It's wild to me that more than 3/4 of SCOTUS are fundamentalist Catholics in a country without state sponsorship of religion. I could live with an expansive view of fundamental rights but that's not what we have - it's expansive where it suits the religious clerics and narrow where it doesn't.
You have a selective reading and interpretation of the 9th amendment ignoring both the 10th amendment and how the federal government operated for the first 100+ years. The founders envisioned a relatively small and less powerful federal government (with limited enumerated powers) with the states retaining greater power. Until the late 1800s, the supreme court consistently held the bill of rights did not apply to the states. So to cite Federalist 84 in support of your position is pretty laughable. Hamilton and the other founding fathers would be shocked and appalled to see how the current federal government dominates the states and most aspects of everyday life.
As late as the 1960s, there was only very limited and selective incorporation of the bill of rights (i.e., prior to then the bill of rights did not for the most part apply to the states) and to this day the legal theories behind incorporation are not universally agreed upon. You seem to have no problem with that era of judicial activism or subsequent periods prior to the end of the Warren court.
And your repetitive rants about radical clerics are just vapid and boring at this point. The US (and so called Western Civilizations) was formed based in large part on judeo-christian beliefs and ethics. You may not like, but that is a historical fact and it is the underpinning of many laws and Western legal theories, not mention values and ethics.
And for the record, there are plenty of non-religious people (and non-Catholics) who feel that aborting a 20 week old fetus is legally wrong or, at a minimum, morally questionable. A claimed "fundamental right" to abortion is different than any other asserted right - precisely because it involves terminating a life or potential life. But continue ranting - once again ignoring any nuance - because you will always do you.
The most (probably only) entertaining part of your post is where you claim the "religious clerics" are out of step with the general population. You truly have no understanding of how your views on most issues - as espoused on this board - completely diverge from those of the "general population". You live in a bubble.
And, once again, you're the guy who still claims Joe Biden is not cognitively impaired. Until you admit that he is, we'll all know how partisan you are and that there is no reason to give credence to any of your thinking.
Yawn. You have to strain really hard to pretend like the opposition to abortion in our country isn't a minority view and isn't rooted in Christian religion. Although our country may have been founded by Christians, they did t want to live in a theocracy. They also had better access to abortion (which was generally legal for the first ~20 weeks) than women do in many GOP theocratic states right now. Yet you will carry water for evangelicals who believe their religious believes should dictate what rights you have.BearGoggles said:Unit2Sucks said:Do you think the right enumerated in the third amendment (quartering troops) is more important than every unenumerated right? It's literally never even been tested by SCOTUS.tequila4kapp said:
Of course there's something different about enumerated rights. They are explicitly stated as a right. That matters. The fact the limits of an enumerated right is interpreted by SCOTUS doesn't negate the fact the fundamental right is explicitly granted.
Maybe these 9 have it right. Maybe the activists of the last 70 years were wrong and our society just got collectively used to it. We have to remember there was a preceding @100 years where Judicial Activism wasn't a thing too.
BTW, I was the one who said things would moderate over time. IIRC I also said something to the effect that pro-lifers were stupidly celebrating the recent decision because there were going to be a lot of elections that went against them and that also probably enshrined a lot more than what Roe (proper) allowed.
The problem I have with your argument is that it reads the 9th amendment right out of the constitution. We are living through all of the problems envisioned by Hamilton in Federalist 84 and the irony for me is that the people who supposedly want to reduce the size and power of the federal government are the ones most in favor of a quite limited view on individual rights. There are so many rights that the founders took for granted and didn't think would need enumeration. The ones they selected were non-obvious ones - like the third amendment - but not meant to be supreme over every other right.
Imagine if a state became overwhelmingly populated by people who follow a religion that doesn't believe in modern medicine. Like if Wyoming was overrun by Christian scientists. Then imagine that they passed a law which restricted surgery and other medical care. Would you argue that the framers didn't consider healthcare to be as important as not having to quarter troops in peace time or else they would have enshrined it in the constitution? I certainly hope not. The answer is that the framers had no intention of enumerating every right.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe that we were endowed with certain unalienable rights, including bodily autonomy, and that SCOTUS has become what the GOP has always complained about. We have a court overwhelmingly occupied by radical religious clerics who are out of step with the general population who have taken to backing the theocracy while using history, etc. as a naked pretext. It's wild to me that more than 3/4 of SCOTUS are fundamentalist Catholics in a country without state sponsorship of religion. I could live with an expansive view of fundamental rights but that's not what we have - it's expansive where it suits the religious clerics and narrow where it doesn't.
You have a selective reading and interpretation of the 9th amendment ignoring both the 10th amendment and how the federal government operated for the first 100+ years. The founders envisioned a relatively small and less powerful federal government (with limited enumerated powers) with the states retaining greater power. Until the late 1800s, the supreme court consistently held the bill of rights did not apply to the states. So to cite Federalist 84 in support of your position is pretty laughable. Hamilton and the other founding fathers would be shocked and appalled to see how the current federal government dominates the states and most aspects of everyday life.
As late as the 1960s, there was only very limited and selective incorporation of the bill of rights (i.e., prior to then the bill of rights did not for the most part apply to the states) and to this day the legal theories behind incorporation are not universally agreed upon. You seem to have no problem with that era of judicial activism or subsequent periods prior to the end of the Warren court.
And your repetitive rants about radical clerics are just vapid and boring at this point. The US (and so called Western Civilizations) was formed based in large part on judeo-christian beliefs and ethics. You may not like, but that is a historical fact and it is the underpinning of many laws and Western legal theories, not mention values and ethics.
And for the record, there are plenty of non-religious people (and non-Catholics) who feel that aborting a 20 week old fetus is legally wrong or, at a minimum, morally questionable. A claimed "fundamental right" to abortion is different than any other asserted right - precisely because it involves terminating a life or potential life. But continue ranting - once again ignoring any nuance - because you will always do you.
The most (probably only) entertaining part of your post is where you claim the "religious clerics" are out of step with the general population. You truly have no understanding of how your views on most issues - as espoused on this board - completely diverge from those of the "general population". You live in a bubble.
And, once again, you're the guy who still claims Joe Biden is not cognitively impaired. Until you admit that he is, we'll all know how partisan you are and that there is no reason to give credence to any of your thinking.
Even within religion, it's basically just fundamentalist evangelicals who the GOP is catering to. Polling indicates that even a majority of Catholics are in favor of some level of abortion access.
As for your unnecessary history lesson, last time I checked you guys used to pretend you believed the words were all that mattered. Apparently that has been replaced by cherry picking convenient history as the new justification for making twisting the constitution to support whatever path Leonard Leo and the other conservative elites have decided to follow.
As for Biden, I've said from the beginning that he's dumb and that we deserve a smart president. He has always been dumb - just like McCain, Trump and Dubya. But Biden was the smartest candidate on the ballot in 2020 and will be the smartest candidate in 2024. You will continue to support a guy who is far dumber than the guy you have diagnosed as having cognitive impairments, hardly a place that makes your criticism credible.
You should change your name to Bubble Boy. Or maybe Strawman Dissembler. Or perhaps the Artful Dodger?Unit2Sucks said:Yawn. You have to strain really hard to pretend like the opposition to abortion in our country isn't a minority view and isn't rooted in Christian religion. Although our country may have been founded by Christians, they did t want to live in a theocracy. They also had better access to abortion (which was generally legal for the first ~20 weeks) than women do in many GOP theocratic states right now. Yet you will carry water for evangelicals who believe their religious believes should dictate what rights you have.BearGoggles said:Unit2Sucks said:Do you think the right enumerated in the third amendment (quartering troops) is more important than every unenumerated right? It's literally never even been tested by SCOTUS.tequila4kapp said:
Of course there's something different about enumerated rights. They are explicitly stated as a right. That matters. The fact the limits of an enumerated right is interpreted by SCOTUS doesn't negate the fact the fundamental right is explicitly granted.
Maybe these 9 have it right. Maybe the activists of the last 70 years were wrong and our society just got collectively used to it. We have to remember there was a preceding @100 years where Judicial Activism wasn't a thing too.
BTW, I was the one who said things would moderate over time. IIRC I also said something to the effect that pro-lifers were stupidly celebrating the recent decision because there were going to be a lot of elections that went against them and that also probably enshrined a lot more than what Roe (proper) allowed.
The problem I have with your argument is that it reads the 9th amendment right out of the constitution. We are living through all of the problems envisioned by Hamilton in Federalist 84 and the irony for me is that the people who supposedly want to reduce the size and power of the federal government are the ones most in favor of a quite limited view on individual rights. There are so many rights that the founders took for granted and didn't think would need enumeration. The ones they selected were non-obvious ones - like the third amendment - but not meant to be supreme over every other right.
Imagine if a state became overwhelmingly populated by people who follow a religion that doesn't believe in modern medicine. Like if Wyoming was overrun by Christian scientists. Then imagine that they passed a law which restricted surgery and other medical care. Would you argue that the framers didn't consider healthcare to be as important as not having to quarter troops in peace time or else they would have enshrined it in the constitution? I certainly hope not. The answer is that the framers had no intention of enumerating every right.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe that we were endowed with certain unalienable rights, including bodily autonomy, and that SCOTUS has become what the GOP has always complained about. We have a court overwhelmingly occupied by radical religious clerics who are out of step with the general population who have taken to backing the theocracy while using history, etc. as a naked pretext. It's wild to me that more than 3/4 of SCOTUS are fundamentalist Catholics in a country without state sponsorship of religion. I could live with an expansive view of fundamental rights but that's not what we have - it's expansive where it suits the religious clerics and narrow where it doesn't.
You have a selective reading and interpretation of the 9th amendment ignoring both the 10th amendment and how the federal government operated for the first 100+ years. The founders envisioned a relatively small and less powerful federal government (with limited enumerated powers) with the states retaining greater power. Until the late 1800s, the supreme court consistently held the bill of rights did not apply to the states. So to cite Federalist 84 in support of your position is pretty laughable. Hamilton and the other founding fathers would be shocked and appalled to see how the current federal government dominates the states and most aspects of everyday life.
As late as the 1960s, there was only very limited and selective incorporation of the bill of rights (i.e., prior to then the bill of rights did not for the most part apply to the states) and to this day the legal theories behind incorporation are not universally agreed upon. You seem to have no problem with that era of judicial activism or subsequent periods prior to the end of the Warren court.
And your repetitive rants about radical clerics are just vapid and boring at this point. The US (and so called Western Civilizations) was formed based in large part on judeo-christian beliefs and ethics. You may not like, but that is a historical fact and it is the underpinning of many laws and Western legal theories, not mention values and ethics.
And for the record, there are plenty of non-religious people (and non-Catholics) who feel that aborting a 20 week old fetus is legally wrong or, at a minimum, morally questionable. A claimed "fundamental right" to abortion is different than any other asserted right - precisely because it involves terminating a life or potential life. But continue ranting - once again ignoring any nuance - because you will always do you.
The most (probably only) entertaining part of your post is where you claim the "religious clerics" are out of step with the general population. You truly have no understanding of how your views on most issues - as espoused on this board - completely diverge from those of the "general population". You live in a bubble.
And, once again, you're the guy who still claims Joe Biden is not cognitively impaired. Until you admit that he is, we'll all know how partisan you are and that there is no reason to give credence to any of your thinking.
Even within religion, it's basically just fundamentalist evangelicals who the GOP is catering to. Polling indicates that even a majority of Catholics are in favor of some level of abortion access.
As for your unnecessary history lesson, last time I checked you guys used to pretend you believed the words were all that mattered. Apparently that has been replaced by cherry picking convenient history as the new justification for making twisting the constitution to support whatever path Leonard Leo and the other conservative elites have decided to follow.
As for Biden, I've said from the beginning that he's dumb and that we deserve a smart president. He has always been dumb - just like McCain, Trump and Dubya. But Biden was the smartest candidate on the ballot in 2020 and will be the smartest candidate in 2024. You will continue to support a guy who is far dumber than the guy you have diagnosed as having cognitive impairments, hardly a place that makes your criticism credible.
I note you use the "opposition to abortion" formulation which, as is usual for you, ignores the real point.
"Oppose abortion" when? Always? After the first trimester? Later term? Where is the line drawn? And, more importantly, per my original post, who draws the line? A court of 9 or people voting? I'll go with the latter.
And contrary to your implication, per Gallup, a majority of American's support abortion in the first trimester and oppose elective abortion thereafter. Or stated differently, a majority of Americans oppose abortion after about 12-15 weeks.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion-rights-continues-post-dobbs.aspx
And I didn't say it was or wasn't based on "Christian" religion. In fact, I said it was based on Judeo Christian principles (if not religion). Lots of very positive and moral beliefs are based on religion. Don't steal. Don't murder, Honor your parents. The proverbial golden rule. Help the less fortunate. All derivative of religion. Adopting those morals/ethics doesn't mean we live in a "Theocracy". More empty rhetoric.
In terms of my "unnecessary history", I note you can't and don't dispute it. Typical nonsubstantive dodge. I'll accept the win.
And in terms of Biden, again, in typical fashion, you are moving the goal posts. We agree he's dumb - hard to dispute that. But you have repeatedly claimed he was not cognitively impaired (which is a different claim/thing than being dumb). Lots of smart people become cognitively impaired and loose much of their acuity and abilities. Unfortunately, Biden started dumb and has descended from there into idiocy, incoherence, and a true loss of faculties. It would be really sad if he wasn't president; now it is both sad and dangerous.
It was clear in 2020 Biden was not all there. It is even more clear now - he can barely speak. He is physically and mentally unable to competently do his job - probably the hardest job in the world that ages young men like Obama prematurely. Yet you can't admit that. You want to revert to some bizarre claim that he's less dumb than all republicans, as if that's an answer to the allegation that Biden is not competent for the job. It is not. All you are doing is confirming that you're so partisan, you'd support a senile old man who is literally a danger to himself and the Country.
Pathetic name calling but perhaps you are trying to mask your even worse arguments that follow.BearGoggles said:You should change your name to Bubble Boy. Or maybe Strawman Dissembler. Or perhaps the Artful Dodger?Unit2Sucks said:Yawn. You have to strain really hard to pretend like the opposition to abortion in our country isn't a minority view and isn't rooted in Christian religion. Although our country may have been founded by Christians, they did t want to live in a theocracy. They also had better access to abortion (which was generally legal for the first ~20 weeks) than women do in many GOP theocratic states right now. Yet you will carry water for evangelicals who believe their religious believes should dictate what rights you have.BearGoggles said:Unit2Sucks said:Do you think the right enumerated in the third amendment (quartering troops) is more important than every unenumerated right? It's literally never even been tested by SCOTUS.tequila4kapp said:
Of course there's something different about enumerated rights. They are explicitly stated as a right. That matters. The fact the limits of an enumerated right is interpreted by SCOTUS doesn't negate the fact the fundamental right is explicitly granted.
Maybe these 9 have it right. Maybe the activists of the last 70 years were wrong and our society just got collectively used to it. We have to remember there was a preceding @100 years where Judicial Activism wasn't a thing too.
BTW, I was the one who said things would moderate over time. IIRC I also said something to the effect that pro-lifers were stupidly celebrating the recent decision because there were going to be a lot of elections that went against them and that also probably enshrined a lot more than what Roe (proper) allowed.
The problem I have with your argument is that it reads the 9th amendment right out of the constitution. We are living through all of the problems envisioned by Hamilton in Federalist 84 and the irony for me is that the people who supposedly want to reduce the size and power of the federal government are the ones most in favor of a quite limited view on individual rights. There are so many rights that the founders took for granted and didn't think would need enumeration. The ones they selected were non-obvious ones - like the third amendment - but not meant to be supreme over every other right.
Imagine if a state became overwhelmingly populated by people who follow a religion that doesn't believe in modern medicine. Like if Wyoming was overrun by Christian scientists. Then imagine that they passed a law which restricted surgery and other medical care. Would you argue that the framers didn't consider healthcare to be as important as not having to quarter troops in peace time or else they would have enshrined it in the constitution? I certainly hope not. The answer is that the framers had no intention of enumerating every right.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe that we were endowed with certain unalienable rights, including bodily autonomy, and that SCOTUS has become what the GOP has always complained about. We have a court overwhelmingly occupied by radical religious clerics who are out of step with the general population who have taken to backing the theocracy while using history, etc. as a naked pretext. It's wild to me that more than 3/4 of SCOTUS are fundamentalist Catholics in a country without state sponsorship of religion. I could live with an expansive view of fundamental rights but that's not what we have - it's expansive where it suits the religious clerics and narrow where it doesn't.
You have a selective reading and interpretation of the 9th amendment ignoring both the 10th amendment and how the federal government operated for the first 100+ years. The founders envisioned a relatively small and less powerful federal government (with limited enumerated powers) with the states retaining greater power. Until the late 1800s, the supreme court consistently held the bill of rights did not apply to the states. So to cite Federalist 84 in support of your position is pretty laughable. Hamilton and the other founding fathers would be shocked and appalled to see how the current federal government dominates the states and most aspects of everyday life.
As late as the 1960s, there was only very limited and selective incorporation of the bill of rights (i.e., prior to then the bill of rights did not for the most part apply to the states) and to this day the legal theories behind incorporation are not universally agreed upon. You seem to have no problem with that era of judicial activism or subsequent periods prior to the end of the Warren court.
And your repetitive rants about radical clerics are just vapid and boring at this point. The US (and so called Western Civilizations) was formed based in large part on judeo-christian beliefs and ethics. You may not like, but that is a historical fact and it is the underpinning of many laws and Western legal theories, not mention values and ethics.
And for the record, there are plenty of non-religious people (and non-Catholics) who feel that aborting a 20 week old fetus is legally wrong or, at a minimum, morally questionable. A claimed "fundamental right" to abortion is different than any other asserted right - precisely because it involves terminating a life or potential life. But continue ranting - once again ignoring any nuance - because you will always do you.
The most (probably only) entertaining part of your post is where you claim the "religious clerics" are out of step with the general population. You truly have no understanding of how your views on most issues - as espoused on this board - completely diverge from those of the "general population". You live in a bubble.
And, once again, you're the guy who still claims Joe Biden is not cognitively impaired. Until you admit that he is, we'll all know how partisan you are and that there is no reason to give credence to any of your thinking.
Even within religion, it's basically just fundamentalist evangelicals who the GOP is catering to. Polling indicates that even a majority of Catholics are in favor of some level of abortion access.
As for your unnecessary history lesson, last time I checked you guys used to pretend you believed the words were all that mattered. Apparently that has been replaced by cherry picking convenient history as the new justification for making twisting the constitution to support whatever path Leonard Leo and the other conservative elites have decided to follow.
As for Biden, I've said from the beginning that he's dumb and that we deserve a smart president. He has always been dumb - just like McCain, Trump and Dubya. But Biden was the smartest candidate on the ballot in 2020 and will be the smartest candidate in 2024. You will continue to support a guy who is far dumber than the guy you have diagnosed as having cognitive impairments, hardly a place that makes your criticism credible.
I note you use the "opposition to abortion" formulation which, as is usual for you, ignores the real point.
"Oppose abortion" when? Always? After the first trimester? Later term? Where is the line drawn? And, more importantly, per my original post, who draws the line? A court of 9 or people voting? I'll go with the latter.
And contrary to your implication, per Gallup, a majority of American's support abortion in the first trimester and oppose elective abortion thereafter. Or stated differently, a majority of Americans oppose abortion after about 12-15 weeks.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion-rights-continues-post-dobbs.aspx
And I didn't say it was or wasn't based on "Christian" religion. In fact, I said it was based on Judeo Christian principles (if not religion). Lots of very positive and moral beliefs are based on religion. Don't steal. Don't murder, Honor your parents. The proverbial golden rule. Help the less fortunate. All derivative of religion. Adopting those morals/ethics doesn't mean we live in a "Theocracy". More empty rhetoric.
In terms of my "unnecessary history", I note you can't and don't dispute it. Typical nonsubstantive dodge. I'll accept the win.
And in terms of Biden, again, in typical fashion, you are moving the goal posts. We agree he's dumb - hard to dispute that. But you have repeatedly claimed he was not cognitively impaired (which is a different claim/thing than being dumb). Lots of smart people become cognitively impaired and loose much of their acuity and abilities. Unfortunately, Biden started dumb and has descended from there into idiocy, incoherence, and a true loss of faculties. It would be really sad if he wasn't president; now it is both sad and dangerous.
It was clear in 2020 Biden was not all there. It is even more clear now - he can barely speak. He is physically and mentally unable to competently do his job - probably the hardest job in the world that ages young men like Obama prematurely. Yet you can't admit that. You want to revert to some bizarre claim that he's less dumb than all republicans, as if that's an answer to the allegation that Biden is not competent for the job. It is not. All you are doing is confirming that you're so partisan, you'd support a senile old man who is literally a danger to himself and the Country.
As for your silly semantic argument, there is plenty of polling that shows that Americans don't support the theocratic full bans that the radical GOP has been passing. That's why every state that has allowed its citizens to vote on rights has voted in favor of guaranteeing abortion rights. According to Pew, 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, including 56% of Catholics (but 0% of the radical GOP clerics on SCOTUS). If you exclude white evangelicals (the only group which actually opposes abortion), the numbers are even higher. 84% of un-affiliated Americans support the legality of abortion.
Fortunately the GOP continues to be punished for their attempts to install their evangelical sharia law, but unfortunately we all suffer while it plays out for the next few years.
In your typical fashion you are attempting to argue that the real story is about late-term abortions which are virtually non-existent in this country except in the small number of cases when they are absolutely necessary. Right now, people who need them for legitimate reasons (non-viable pregnancies, complications, etc.) are having trouble getting care because their doctors are worried about going to jail or losing their licenses. I recently had a friend who lost her baby well after the point at which "reasonable" people believe abortion should be permitted. It was a heartbreaking tragedy for her family. She lives in Texas and would have been in a dire situation but fortunately happened to be traveling in CA when it occurred, so she was able to obtain medical care that would have been unavailable to her at home in Texas. These draconian laws, which you seem to favor, are causing problems like this across America and it's impacting people whether or not they believe women should have a right to make their own healthcare decisions.
As for Biden, I'm sure Trump would appreciate your support if his brain weren't a boiled onion. While I would prefer an actually intelligent president, as I've stated numerous times, there is no question in my mind that the country is far safer with the entire team Biden than it is with Trump world. You are going to support the GOP nominee who is explicitly promising a revenge tour. Your guy has nothing to offer Americans and isn't even bothering at this point to pretend. He and his team of future convicted felons is already scheming how to abuse the insurrection act and take other unconstitutional actions to prosecute his enemies and protect his friends. But please continue to pretend the real problem is that Biden is dumb and a poor public speaker.
Cue the reporting about how Trump, a 77 year old conspiracist who is delusional about basic aspects of reality, is too cognitively impaired to be president. Right? Right? pic.twitter.com/3Gdp2tgOBc
— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) November 6, 2023
tequila4kapp said:
Ohio voters make their voices heard.
Though if the local GOP has their way, this one won't count.
Um, what? Ohio Republicans are pretending the constitutional amendment voters just approved establishing a right to abortion doesn't affect their abortion ban.
— Taniel (@Taniel) November 10, 2023
*And* they're saying they may pass strip courts of jurisdiction over the issue of abortion...! https://t.co/64TiLo9D21 pic.twitter.com/qiHfGuOvwy
There are levels of stupid. Thinking you can ignore an election that amends a state C is pretty high up there. I cannot see how this move ends up well for Rs.
Yet another example of Republicans doubling down on a losing strategy. Whatever they accomplish will get overturned after the next election or two when enough Republicans get voted out or when courts overturn their actions.sycasey said:tequila4kapp said:
Ohio voters make their voices heard.
Though if the local GOP has their way, this one won't count.Um, what? Ohio Republicans are pretending the constitutional amendment voters just approved establishing a right to abortion doesn't affect their abortion ban.
— Taniel (@Taniel) November 10, 2023
*And* they're saying they may pass strip courts of jurisdiction over the issue of abortion...! https://t.co/64TiLo9D21 pic.twitter.com/qiHfGuOvwy
Another tragedy in Ohio caused by the radical clerics and their financial patrons led by Leonard Leo. This was completely foreseeable so one must assume this was a desired outcome.
Texas continues to punish women as well.
And another reminder of how this opinion was based on fake history as spoon fed by dark money groups funded by conservative billionaires tied to Leo.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/03/supreme-court-amicus-briefs-leonard-leo-00127497
Her fetus was unviable. Her water broke way too early and the fetus died within her womb. She had a painful bloody miscarriage and tried to flush it and got charged with this absurd charge. Miscarriages are incredibly common. It’s not her fault she lost the pregnancy. https://t.co/F2xfGbeSdt
— Decoding Fox News (@DecodingFoxNews) December 3, 2023
Texas continues to punish women as well.
Here is today's temporary restraining order granting Cox the right to terminate her pregnancy. Note that Texas fought this order and will likely appeal to try to block Cox's abortion.https://t.co/YUGbOOCUzr https://t.co/FmvfLhEo3j pic.twitter.com/r90DRGqVQE
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) December 7, 2023
It’s almost like doctors are genuinely—and reasonably—worried about civil and criminal liability for good faith exercises of their best medical judgment that might end up falling on the wrong side of the ambiguous lines that these state abortion bans draw…
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 7, 2023
And another reminder of how this opinion was based on fake history as spoon fed by dark money groups funded by conservative billionaires tied to Leo.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/03/supreme-court-amicus-briefs-leonard-leo-00127497
The Republican Party treats women like disposable garbage
https://www.threads.net/@betoorourke/post/C0kpmMgt7r-/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
https://www.threads.net/@betoorourke/post/C0kpmMgt7r-/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
What a terrible outcome.Unit2Sucks said:
Another tragedy in Ohio caused by the radical clerics and their financial patrons led by Leonard Leo. This was completely foreseeable so one must assume this was a desired outcome.Her fetus was unviable. Her water broke way too early and the fetus died within her womb. She had a painful bloody miscarriage and tried to flush it and got charged with this absurd charge. Miscarriages are incredibly common. It’s not her fault she lost the pregnancy. https://t.co/F2xfGbeSdt
— Decoding Fox News (@DecodingFoxNews) December 3, 2023
Texas continues to punish women as well.Here is today's temporary restraining order granting Cox the right to terminate her pregnancy. Note that Texas fought this order and will likely appeal to try to block Cox's abortion.https://t.co/YUGbOOCUzr https://t.co/FmvfLhEo3j pic.twitter.com/r90DRGqVQE
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) December 7, 2023It’s almost like doctors are genuinely—and reasonably—worried about civil and criminal liability for good faith exercises of their best medical judgment that might end up falling on the wrong side of the ambiguous lines that these state abortion bans draw…
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 7, 2023
And another reminder of how this opinion was based on fake history as spoon fed by dark money groups funded by conservative billionaires tied to Leo.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/03/supreme-court-amicus-briefs-leonard-leo-00127497
Why does Texas only allow abortion if the mom's life is in danger instead of if it is necessary for her health, as is the case here?
Roe had a lesser known contemporary case, Doe, which ruled that emotional well being of the mom counted under the "medically necessary" test. Pro-life types see "emotion" as a cover that leads to abortion on demand. The Texas statute which limits abortions to instances where the mom's life is in danger can be seen as an overreaction to the emotion test.
When Roe was overturned I heard shrieking outside my window. It didn't sound human, more like demons.
You should probably quit using bath salts.bear2034 said:
When Roe was overturned I heard shrieking outside my window. It didn't sound human, more like demons.
When I turned on the TV after hearing that no one was going to ban gas stoves but that Republicans were afraid of it, I heard shrieking. Come to think of it, I heard pitiful lamentations from these fake tough guys when Bud light sent a beer to an influencer, when a caravan thousands of miles way appeared, when they were asked to wear masks, when black people took a knee at a sporting event, when a change to bathroom rights was announced, and numerous other times in the last few years since they caught Trump's fear and outrage disease.Eastern Oregon Bear said:You should probably quit using bath salts.bear2034 said:
When Roe was overturned I heard shrieking outside my window. It didn't sound human, more like demons.
Women are dying because the GOP spent decades to make it happen. They decided that forcing women to have children was worth the increase in maternal mortality. They decided that women shouldn't have agency in their own healthcare, radical theocrats like Ken Paxton should. You can pretend it is an unintended consequence but it's not - it was very much a willful tradeoff.
Women were right to shriek. A bunch of stupid white men took away their fundamental body autonomy. All of the decades of warnings about what would happen if the GOP was successful in overturning Roe have turned out to be true. Women are dying and women are suffering for non-viable pregnancies.
Unit2Sucks said:When I turned on the TV after hearing that no one was going to ban gas stoves but that Republicans were afraid of it, I heard shrieking.Eastern Oregon Bear said:You should probably quit using bath salts.bear2034 said:
When Roe was overturned I heard shrieking outside my window. It didn't sound human, more like demons.
Kamala has a gas stove too.
Most people in wealthy states (mainly CA and NY) do. Wait until the GOP realizes its base is predominantly using electric kitchens just like most of the 48 other states.bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:When I turned on the TV after hearing that no one was going to ban gas stoves but that Republicans were afraid of it, I heard shrieking.Eastern Oregon Bear said:You should probably quit using bath salts.bear2034 said:
When Roe was overturned I heard shrieking outside my window. It didn't sound human, more like demons.
Kamala has a gas stove too.
Red states have been using electric stoves for decades but you guys still cry in fear of something that isn't even happening.
Don't you mean wait until Democrats realize its base in NY, CA, and IL are predominantly using gas stoves including some stoves that the Biden admin eventually wants to eliminate?Unit2Sucks said:Most people in wealthy states (mainly CA and NY) do. Wait until the GOP realizes its base is predominantly using electric kitchens just like most of the 48 other states.bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:When I turned on the TV after hearing that no one was going to ban gas stoves but that Republicans were afraid of it, I heard shrieking.Eastern Oregon Bear said:You should probably quit using bath salts.bear2034 said:
When Roe was overturned I heard shrieking outside my window. It didn't sound human, more like demons.
Kamala has a gas stove too.
Red states have been using electric stoves for decades but you guys still cry in fear of something that isn't even happening.
Quote:
"Natural gas stoves, which are used in about 40% of homes in the US, emit air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter at levels the EPA and World Health Organization have said are unsafe and linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, cancer, and other health conditions, according to reports by groups such as the Institute for Policy Integrity and the American Chemical Society." the federal agency said last month.
Federal lawsuits have also been filed in NY challenging the legality of New York's ban on gas stoves and furnaces in new residential buildings in a move to challenge Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul's push for green energy.
The federal government has no plans to ban gas stoves and never has. It's another Fox News hoax to make grown GOP men cry. You guys are so gullible and fall for it every time.bear2034 said:Don't you mean wait until Democrats realize its base in NY, CA, and IL are predominantly using gas stoves including some stoves that the Biden admin eventually wants to eliminate?Unit2Sucks said:Most people in wealthy states (mainly CA and NY) do. Wait until the GOP realizes its base is predominantly using electric kitchens just like most of the 48 other states.bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:When I turned on the TV after hearing that no one was going to ban gas stoves but that Republicans were afraid of it, I heard shrieking.Eastern Oregon Bear said:You should probably quit using bath salts.bear2034 said:
When Roe was overturned I heard shrieking outside my window. It didn't sound human, more like demons.
Kamala has a gas stove too.
Red states have been using electric stoves for decades but you guys still cry in fear of something that isn't even happening.Quote:
"Natural gas stoves, which are used in about 40% of homes in the US, emit air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter at levels the EPA and World Health Organization have said are unsafe and linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, cancer, and other health conditions, according to reports by groups such as the Institute for Policy Integrity and the American Chemical Society." the federal agency said last month.
Federal lawsuits have also been filed in NY challenging the legality of New York's ban on gas stoves and furnaces in new residential buildings in a move to challenge Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul's push for green energy.
Unit2Sucks said:The federal government has no plans to ban gas stoves and never has. It's another Fox News hoax to make grown GOP men cry. You guys are so gullible and fall for it every time.bear2034 said:Don't you mean wait until Democrats realize its base in NY, CA, and IL are predominantly using gas stoves including some stoves that the Biden admin eventually wants to eliminate?Unit2Sucks said:Most people in wealthy states (mainly CA and NY) do. Wait until the GOP realizes its base is predominantly using electric kitchens just like most of the 48 other states.bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:When I turned on the TV after hearing that no one was going to ban gas stoves but that Republicans were afraid of it, I heard shrieking.Eastern Oregon Bear said:You should probably quit using bath salts.bear2034 said:
When Roe was overturned I heard shrieking outside my window. It didn't sound human, more like demons.
Kamala has a gas stove too.
Red states have been using electric stoves for decades but you guys still cry in fear of something that isn't even happening.Quote:
"Natural gas stoves, which are used in about 40% of homes in the US, emit air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter at levels the EPA and World Health Organization have said are unsafe and linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, cancer, and other health conditions, according to reports by groups such as the Institute for Policy Integrity and the American Chemical Society." the federal agency said last month.
Federal lawsuits have also been filed in NY challenging the legality of New York's ban on gas stoves and furnaces in new residential buildings in a move to challenge Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul's push for green energy.
Google it. The top results are right wing crazies CNN, Time, USA Today.
USA Today:
"A federal agency says a ban on gas stoves is on the table amid rising concern about harmful indoor air pollutants emitted by the appliances. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission plans to take action to address the pollution, which can cause health and respiratory problems."
Or
New York (CNN) " A federal agency is considering a ban on gas stoves, a source of indoor pollution linked to childhood asthma.
Richard Trumka Jr., a US Consumer Product Safety commissioner, set off a firestorm this week by saying in an interview with Bloomberg that gas stoves posed a "hidden hazard" and suggested the agency could ban them.
Trumka confirmed to CNN that "everything's on the table" when it comes to gas stoves, but stressed that any ban would apply only to new gas stoves, not existing ones.
The CPSC has been considering action on gas stoves for months. Trumka recommended in October that the CPSC seek public comment on the hazards associated with gas stoves. The pollutants have been linked to asthma and worsening respiratory conditions."
But
In tweets following his initial interview which spurred the above articles Trumka backtracked, including saying any regulations would be forward looking only.
Justice Thomas is black and Justice Barrett is a woman per Wikipedia.Unit2Sucks said:
Women were right to shriek. A bunch of stupid white men took away their fundamental body autonomy. All of the decades of warnings about what would happen if the GOP was successful in overturning Roe have turned out to be true. Women are dying and women are suffering for non-viable pregnancies.
They work for white male billionaires.bear2034 said:Justice Thomas is black and Justice Barrett is a woman per Wikipedia.Unit2Sucks said:
Women were right to shriek. A bunch of stupid white men took away their fundamental body autonomy. All of the decades of warnings about what would happen if the GOP was successful in overturning Roe have turned out to be true. Women are dying and women are suffering for non-viable pregnancies.
Conservative republicans are so barbaric and backwards. Kate Cox of Texas is pregnant and has been told by her doctors the fetus will not survive and prolonging the pregnancy will jeopardize her health and future fertility.
In the conservative republican massive state intrusion government they have in Texas, she had to go to court to get permission to get the medical care she needs. The court approved. Then the conservative republican Texas AG appealed and the conservative republican Texas Supreme Court further intervened in this poor woman's life by issuing a stay.
So Kate Cox of Texas is sitting there in limbo with a dying fetus inside her that poses a threat to herself and any potential future offspring while the big government conservative republican men of Texas' government play politics and decide her fate from behind government desks and judicial robes.
Disgusting. Get your big conservative republican government out of people's lives.
https://www.threads.net/@djcowboy64/post/C0oi_AQOJRh/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
In the conservative republican massive state intrusion government they have in Texas, she had to go to court to get permission to get the medical care she needs. The court approved. Then the conservative republican Texas AG appealed and the conservative republican Texas Supreme Court further intervened in this poor woman's life by issuing a stay.
So Kate Cox of Texas is sitting there in limbo with a dying fetus inside her that poses a threat to herself and any potential future offspring while the big government conservative republican men of Texas' government play politics and decide her fate from behind government desks and judicial robes.
Disgusting. Get your big conservative republican government out of people's lives.
https://www.threads.net/@djcowboy64/post/C0oi_AQOJRh/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
tequila4kapp said:Unit2Sucks said:The federal government has no plans to ban gas stoves and never has. It's another Fox News hoax to make grown GOP men cry. You guys are so gullible and fall for it every time.bear2034 said:Don't you mean wait until Democrats realize its base in NY, CA, and IL are predominantly using gas stoves including some stoves that the Biden admin eventually wants to eliminate?Unit2Sucks said:Most people in wealthy states (mainly CA and NY) do. Wait until the GOP realizes its base is predominantly using electric kitchens just like most of the 48 other states.bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:When I turned on the TV after hearing that no one was going to ban gas stoves but that Republicans were afraid of it, I heard shrieking.Eastern Oregon Bear said:You should probably quit using bath salts.bear2034 said:
When Roe was overturned I heard shrieking outside my window. It didn't sound human, more like demons.
Kamala has a gas stove too.
Red states have been using electric stoves for decades but you guys still cry in fear of something that isn't even happening.Quote:
"Natural gas stoves, which are used in about 40% of homes in the US, emit air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter at levels the EPA and World Health Organization have said are unsafe and linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, cancer, and other health conditions, according to reports by groups such as the Institute for Policy Integrity and the American Chemical Society." the federal agency said last month.
Federal lawsuits have also been filed in NY challenging the legality of New York's ban on gas stoves and furnaces in new residential buildings in a move to challenge Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul's push for green energy.
Google it. The top results are right wing crazies CNN, Time, USA Today.
USA Today:
"A federal agency says a ban on gas stoves is on the table amid rising concern about harmful indoor air pollutants emitted by the appliances. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission plans to take action to address the pollution, which can cause health and respiratory problems."
Or
New York (CNN) " A federal agency is considering a ban on gas stoves, a source of indoor pollution linked to childhood asthma.
Richard Trumka Jr., a US Consumer Product Safety commissioner, set off a firestorm this week by saying in an interview with Bloomberg that gas stoves posed a "hidden hazard" and suggested the agency could ban them.
Trumka confirmed to CNN that "everything's on the table" when it comes to gas stoves, but stressed that any ban would apply only to new gas stoves, not existing ones.
The CPSC has been considering action on gas stoves for months. Trumka recommended in October that the CPSC seek public comment on the hazards associated with gas stoves. The pollutants have been linked to asthma and worsening respiratory conditions."
But
In tweets following his initial interview which spurred the above articles Trumka backtracked, including saying any regulations would be forward looking only.
The CPSC (and Trumpka) clarified that they aren't looking at banning gas.
Quote:
The head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced he has no plans to ban gas stoves days after a report said officials with the agency were considering putting a stop to the use of them.
"Over the past several days, there has been a lot of attention paid to gas stove emissions and to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Research indicates that emissions from gas stoves can be hazardous, and the CPSC is looking for ways to reduce related indoor air quality hazards," CPSC Chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric said in a statement Wednesday. "But to be clear, I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so."
A study last year showed that gas stove emissions are responsible for a surprising amount of health conditions so it makes sense for the CPSC to investigate.
Personally, I have a gas range and now make sure I always run my hood when I'm cooking. Given that most GOP constituents run on electric, this shouldn't be a concern for them, but they are ready to cry any time their media decides to whip them into an outrage frenzy.
dajo9 said:
Conservative republicans are so barbaric and backwards. Kate Cox of Texas is pregnant and has been told by her doctors the fetus will not survive and prolonging the pregnancy will jeopardize her health and future fertility.
In the conservative republican massive state intrusion government they have in Texas, she had to go to court to get permission to get the medical care she needs. The court approved. Then the conservative republican Texas AG appealed and the conservative republican Texas Supreme Court further intervened in this poor woman's life by issuing a stay.
So Kate Cox of Texas is sitting there in limbo with a dying fetus inside her that poses a threat to herself and any potential future offspring while the big government conservative republican men of Texas' government play politics and decide her fate from behind government desks and judicial robes.
Disgusting. Get your big conservative republican government out of people's lives.
https://www.threads.net/@djcowboy64/post/C0oi_AQOJRh/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
This story is horrible, but....I'm not sure why the Texas Supreme Court is trying so hard to get Biden re-elected.
White male politicians tried to take them down.Unit2Sucks said:They work for white male billionaires.bear2034 said:Justice Thomas is black and Justice Barrett is a woman per Wikipedia.Unit2Sucks said:
Women were right to shriek. A bunch of stupid white men took away their fundamental body autonomy. All of the decades of warnings about what would happen if the GOP was successful in overturning Roe have turned out to be true. Women are dying and women are suffering for non-viable pregnancies.
Featured Stories
See All
Cal Wins First Ever MPSF Championship
by Cal Athletics
Bears Topple Records As Cal’s Men Finish Third At ACC Championships
by Cal Athletics
Football Roster Post Spring - The Tight Ends
by Bear Insider
Dixon-Veal Ready to Show What He Can Do For the Bears
by Jim McGill