Politics

[Irish#1]

This is why we make so much fun of you for being the king of strawman arguing. You can't make a rational argument that holds water for allowing males to participate in women's sports, so you twist the position of those who oppose it to be "penis inspection" or obsession with kids' underpants instead of their actual position, which is that allowing males to participate in women's sports is inherently dangerous and unfair to women.

It's the classic vortex. I tip my hat. The man has mastered it.

 

[drayer54]

I was told there was no link.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

Should have acted sooner.

Prior to 2015, it probably would have. Now? This Santos goof is so far down the news cycle that the situation is basically a new norm. Under the old norms, it's a huge story and he's probably gone a long time ago.

 

[drayer54]

Parents for Penis Inspection did something wrong?? Whaaaaatttt.

Already did the math on this earlier in a thread on this. It’s a net negative to have people test their kids and prove their biological composition. The financial and actual “cultural” costs are much higher than any potential benefit. So yes, anyone who’s ignoring that is focused on kids genitals.

Sports physicals are required where I'm at anyway. Financial costs are an irrelevant argument. Perverted liberals who want to inject social policy at the expense of women's sports have bizarre priorities in life. Projecting accusations like that is probably normal in the radical bubble, but shoving boys on the girls basketball court and swim meet is still absolutely disgusting.

Senate hearings on the topic included left wing women talking about how girls should learn to lose to tranny men as well as Torontos talking points.

 

[Irish#1]

This response is pretty good.

I’ll never understand the mind of a Leftist woman who advocates for the eradication of her own gender, in order to appease a delusional man.

 

[NorthDakota]

After watching last night's debate - the Democrats should consider nominating Nikki Haley.

Pro-Trans, Pro-Choice, Pro-Ukraine, POC woman, liberal wet dream.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Unfortunately this is where we are at as a country.

 

[NDMatt91]

Last time I checked, Trump was the one who gave Fauci a commendation and included him in his campaign ads for his re-election bid.

 

[drayer54]

Unfortunately this is where we are at as a country.

Dems are way more anti-Semitic than any of the party wants to admit.

 

[Irish#1]

Probably shouldn't had publicly berated her staff.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

US man charged with wife’s murder wins Republican town primary from jail

Andrew Wilhoite, 40, of Lebanon, Indiana, accused of killing Nikki Wilhoite with flower pot and dumping her body in nearby creek

www.theguardian.com

 

[ulukinatme]

Is there a reason we're posting stories from a year and a half ago?
He withdrew his name, btw, just to keep you up to speed. Trial keeps getting pushed back, if he's guilty I hope he gets the chair.
Here's another from a year ago:

Police arrest Vegas-area elected official in reporter death

A Las Vegas-area elected public official has been arrested in the fatal stabbing of a veteran newspaper reporter whose investigations of the official’s work preceded his primary loss in June.

apnews.com

 

[ab2cmiller]

Is there a reason we're posting stories from a year and a half ago?
He withdrew his name, btw, just to keep you up to speed. Trial keeps getting pushed back, if he's guilty I hope he gets the chair.
Here's another from a year ago:

Police arrest Vegas-area elected official in reporter death

A Las Vegas-area elected public official has been arrested in the fatal stabbing of a veteran newspaper reporter whose investigations of the official’s work preceded his primary loss in June.

apnews.com

I think he was just pointing out that there is a ever growing segment of voters on each side that ..... as Nate Silver would say ..... are "bat shit crazy".

I get that it was a local primary, where the number of votes cast is way down, but how in the world does this guy win the primary after being arrested for murder.

 

[ulukinatme]

I think he was just pointing out that there is a ever growing segment of voters on each side that ..... as Nate Silver would say ..... are "bat shit crazy".

I get that it was a local primary, where the number of votes cast is way down, but how in the world does this guy win the primary after being arrested for murder.

Sure, there are plenty of bat shit crazy voters, but more than anything the average voter is uninformed or just plain ignorant. This is especially true in local elections. People show up to the polls, they see D or R next to a name, and they vote accordingly with no knowledge of a candidate's position on issues. It looks like 3 Republicans ran in the primary for 3 spots on the board and so all 3 advanced to the General Election until he dropped out. Apparently he got 60 of the 247 Republican votes. There's definitely a minimum of 60 ignorant voters in that county.

 

[drayer54]

Sure, there are plenty of bat shit crazy voters, but more than anything the average voter is uninformed or just plain ignorant. This is especially true in local elections. People show up to the polls, they see D or R next to a name, and they vote accordingly with no knowledge of a candidate's position on issues. It looks like 3 Republicans ran in the primary for 3 spots on the board and so all 3 advanced to the General Election until he dropped out. Apparently he got 60 of the 247 Republican votes. There's definitely a minimum of 60 ignorant voters in that county.

Have you ever been to Lebanon, Indiana??

 

[GATTACA!]

Texas Supreme Court rules against woman who sought abortion hours after she says she’ll travel out of state

A state district judge granted the request last week, but the Texas Supreme Court directed the lower court to vacate its order Monday.

www.nbcnews.com

Despicable

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Texas Supreme Court rules against woman who sought abortion hours after she says she’ll travel out of state

A state district judge granted the request last week, but the Texas Supreme Court directed the lower court to vacate its order Monday.

www.nbcnews.com

Despicable

 

[Bishop2b5]

Texas Supreme Court rules against woman who sought abortion hours after she says she’ll travel out of state

A state district judge granted the request last week, but the Texas Supreme Court directed the lower court to vacate its order Monday.

www.nbcnews.com

Despicable

I'm a little confused. The article seems to indicate that the Texas Supreme court said she didn't need a court order and that it was up to physicians to determine if she met the exception rule.

A state district judge granted the request Thursday, but then the state Supreme Court temporarily paused the lower court’s order Friday. On Monday evening, the Texas Supreme Court directed the lower court to vacate its order.

"A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion," the court wrote in its decision, adding: "The law leaves to physicians — not judges — both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient."

Am I misreading this or did the author not do a good job clarifying which court said this? Her situation seems to clearly meet the requirements for allowing an abortion for a very obvious medical problem.

 

[ulukinatme]

I'm a little confused. The article seems to indicate that the Texas Supreme court said she didn't need a court order and that it was up to physicians to determine if she met the exception rule.



Am I misreading this or did the author not do a good job clarifying which court said this? Her situation seems to clearly meet the requirements for allowing an abortion for a very obvious medical problem.

That's the way I'm understanding it. The doctor failed to disclose the medical emergency, it's on them.

The court said Cox's doctor did not establish or attest that Cox's symptoms were life-threatening.

'The exception requires a doctor to decide whether Ms. Cox's difficulties pose such risks,' the ruling continues.

'(A doctor) asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox's condition poses the risks the exception requires.'

The ruling continued: 'The courts cannot go further by entering into the medical-judgment arena. The Texas Medical Board, however, can do more to provide guidance in response to any confusion that currently prevails.'

 

[Bishop2b5]

That's the way I'm understanding it. The doctor failed to disclose the medical emergency, it's on them.

Yeah, I've done some further research and reading on this, and that's my take too. The Texas Supreme Court by no means told her she couldn't have the abortion. They said it was on the doctor to determine if she qualified, not the courts, and the doctor didn't do enough to make the case (which certainly appears makeable). In the doctor's defense, the law is a bit vague and needs further clarification and more input from the Texas medical board. The TSC certainly appears to be saying, "You don't need us to get involved. The law provides for this and your doctor needs to do a better job making your case for you."

I think most reasonable people understand her plight and support her being able to abort this pregnancy due to the medical issues. The court clearly stated that they didn't expect a patient to be near death or on the verge of irreparable harm before a patient qualified for an exception to the abortion law. They need to clarify the law and make it easier for doctors to do their job and know what is and isn't an acceptable exception.

 

[ulukinatme]

Yeah, I've done some further research and reading on this, and that's my take too. The Texas Supreme Court by no means told her she couldn't have the abortion. They said it was on the doctor to determine if she qualified, not the courts, and the doctor didn't do enough to make the case (which certainly appears makeable). In the doctor's defense, the law is a bit vague and needs further clarification and more input from the Texas medical board. The TSC certainly appears to be saying, "You don't need us to get involved. The law provides for this and your doctor needs to do a better job making your case for you."

I think most reasonable people understand her plight and support her being able to abort this pregnancy due to the medical issues. The court clearly stated that they didn't expect a patient to be near death or on the verge of irreparable harm before a patient qualified for an exception to the abortion law. They need to clarify the law and make it easier for doctors to do their job and know what is and isn't an acceptable exception.

To be fair, doctors can certainly be ignorant to the laws in their state when it comes to handling these sorts of issues. My wife works for a company that serves Medicare/Medicaid etc patients and deals with doctors every day as far as approving or denying coverage. A lot of these doctors don't know the law and my wife will have inform them on how to handle some cases, everything from pediatrics to gender reassignments. Sometimes even the state government doesn't know their own laws, she's had to get into it with a rep for a Governor before. Some of these doctors are just really bad though, it makes you wonder how they got through medical school. Twice in the last month a particular doctor couldn't do basic math and pushed back when my wife tried to correct them. She had to go over the doctor's head when they challenged her.

 

[Irish#1]

Have you ever been to Lebanon, Indiana??

Don't be knocking the home of Rick Mount.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Even local elections are now being litigated to the max. This process is gross and isn’t democratic.

 

[PerthDomer]

To be fair, doctors can certainly be ignorant to the laws in their state when it comes to handling these sorts of issues. My wife works for a company that serves Medicare/Medicaid etc patients and deals with doctors every day as far as approving or denying coverage. A lot of these doctors don't know the law and my wife will have inform them on how to handle some cases, everything from pediatrics to gender reassignments. Sometimes even the state government doesn't know their own laws, she's had to get into it with a rep for a Governor before. Some of these doctors are just really bad though, it makes you wonder how they got through medical school. Twice in the last month a particular doctor couldn't do basic math and pushed back when my wife tried to correct them. She had to go over the doctor's head when they challenged her.

The issue with these laws is they're intentionally vague. What exactly is an imminent threat to life? All pregnancies have some risk of mortality. This was higher but not 100%. The fetus in question was alive, but had low chances of surviving to birth and about a 0% chance of making it to a 1st birthday.

If the woman started hemorrhaging or got septic that's 100% imminent. But instead what you can say is that she has a very elevated chance of progressing to a bad outcome. But if she hemmorges or gets septic she'd probably live. But there's a small chance she might die. And a far bigger chance she's left without a uterus, or in renal failure dependent on dialysis.

The law is written so that if a doc performs the abortion you can argue they violated the letter of the law. But if they don't do the abortion the lawyer can say they totally could have. It really depends on who your AG is and Paxton is the kind who'd prosecute every case.

The court also ruled that if she could get out of the state to seek an abortion elsewhere it obviously wasn't imminent and wouldn't qualify. So yes, they ruled a doc would be prosecuted for performing the abortion.

 

[ulukinatme]

Even local elections are now being litigated to the max. This process is gross and isn’t democratic.

I agree, it shouldn't have come down to litigation. I don't think a new election should have been warranted either. They should have thrown out the illegal votes and gone with the results as is. Apparently several mail in ballots were invalid but counted, there were two people that voted twice (Both conservatives according to the 2nd article), and some felons. There needs to be a better system.

Bleich said at least five absentee mail-in ballots were missing a required witness signature and should not have been counted.
In addition, two people voted twice and four votes were cast by unqualified people, such as individuals incarcerated for a felony conviction, Mike Spence, the Caddo Parish clerk of court, confirmed to The Associated Press following the recount.

 

[ulukinatme]

The issue with these laws is they're intentionally vague. What exactly is an imminent threat to life? All pregnancies have some risk of mortality. This was higher but not 100%. The fetus in question was alive, but had low chances of surviving to birth and about a 0% chance of making it to a 1st birthday.

If the woman started hemorrhaging or got septic that's 100% imminent. But instead what you can say is that she has a very elevated chance of progressing to a bad outcome. But if she hemmorges or gets septic she'd probably live. But there's a small chance she might die. And a far bigger chance she's left without a uterus, or in renal failure dependent on dialysis.

The law is written so that if a doc performs the abortion you can argue they violated the letter of the law. But if they don't do the abortion the lawyer can say they totally could have. It really depends on who your AG is and Paxton is the kind who'd prosecute every case.

The court also ruled that if she could get out of the state to seek an abortion elsewhere it obviously wasn't imminent and wouldn't qualify. So yes, they ruled a doc would be prosecuted for performing the abortion.

I agree, laws in general are are certainly vague and I don't really blame the doctors for being unsure about many of them. I don't think the last sentence is valid given their comments on the ruling though. It's not for a judge to rule if the abortion is necessary, the doctor makes that call.

"A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion," the court wrote in its decision, adding: "The law leaves to physicians — not judges — both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient."

"A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a life-saving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment," it said in its decision.

And this was what was previously posted from another article:

The court said Cox's doctor did not establish or attest that Cox's symptoms were life-threatening.

'The exception requires a doctor to decide whether Ms. Cox's difficulties pose such risks,' the ruling continues.

'(A doctor) asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox's condition poses the risks the exception requires.'

The ruling continued: 'The courts cannot go further by entering into the medical-judgment arena. The Texas Medical Board, however, can do more to provide guidance in response to any confusion that currently prevails.'

 

[PerthDomer]

I agree, laws in general are are certainly vague and I don't really blame the doctors for being unsure about many of them. I don't think the last sentence is valid given their comments on the ruling though. It's not for a judge to rule if the abortion is necessary, the doctor makes that call.



And this was what was previously posted from another article:

I'll search for the quote, but the court said in effect that if the woman was able to be transported out of state/file suit and wait she wouldn't meet the imminent definition.

It's pretty clear the state's definition is extremely tight. That's how most hospitals are reading it. As a doctor you can't ignore your hospital's medical legal dept and keep your job. And if you get launched by your hospital, let alone get sued by the state good luck getting licensed anywhere else

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I agree, it shouldn't have come down to litigation. I don't think a new election should have been warranted either. They should have thrown out the illegal votes and gone with the results as is. Apparently several mail in ballots were invalid but counted, there were two people that voted twice (Both conservatives according to the 2nd article), and some felons. There needs to be a better system.

In any case if they counted the fraudulent votes the same in both recounts and the black man won both times why would a judge throw out both wins and the certification? Disgusting. At all levels. It must be fixed.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Lol. I’m conflicted. I remember Pelosi saying this and it being a huge deal. Let’s see how this plays out. 😂

 

[ulukinatme]

The partisan witchhunts need to end, in all honesty. It's a bad look for Congress, and it's getting old.