The doublethink being flagrantly exhibited by the court at this point should beggar belief… but honestly, I don’t think anybody is surprised anymore. To be perfectly frank: we expect it. Overall national confidence in the integrity of the Supreme Court is fairly shattered nowadays.
I guess Roberts’s plan to burnish his historical legacy is to help the Republic of Gilead establish itself and ask them to build him a statue in exchange. What a fucking limpdick.
Back in 2001, Right To Life President George W, Bush ruled that fetal stem cell research, which involves aborted humans, was fine and dandy. This came after Right To Life former First Lady Nancy Reagan discovered that stem cell technology might help Ronnie's dementia.
They have no problem playing both sides of the issue.
On August 9, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush introduced a ban on federal funding for research on newly created human embryonic stem (ES) cell lines. The policy was intended as a compromise and specified that research on lines created prior to that date would still be eligible for funding. Seventy-one lines from 14 laboratories [1] across the globe met Bush’s eligibility criteria, and scientists who wished to investigate these lines could still receive grants through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In practice, however, only 21 lines proved to be of any use to investigators [2].
It was a compromise that siad that some aborted corpses were okay.
It was a compromise that siad that some aborted corpses were okay.
They stopped any further lines from being created. What do you not understand about this? It was already ongoing research, and they put a stop to it for political purposes. Even if this calls it a “compromise” it meant that no further lines (no new fetal tissue) could be used.
Portraying GWB as someone who was fighting for stem cell research rather than against it is flat out false.
Where did I say he was fighting for it? I said that he didn't ban it completely because there were other people in the GOP who wanted the research to continue.
If he'd really believed that the soul begins at conception, there would have no cell research at all. That's the point I was trying to make.
What they wanted was no cell research at all. But that wasn’t politically possible, and it wasn’t because other members of the GOP didn’t want it. So he “compromised” by saying they could still use the existing lines but no future lines could be created. You’re acting like the GOP was okay with this, they were not. This was a compromise because it’s was the best they could do at the time, and it still got some of the research banned.
Sure Nancy Reagan was outspoken about it but it was not the GOP.
Most likely not and the child will have less rights as soon as its born. Its always been about forced birth to maintain a population of poor folk that they can exploit as a cheap labor source.
The GOP hates IVF because a man doesn't get sexual gratification from the process... Well, not in the way they want anyways. And to think, a woman could get pregnant without a man. Or even worse, two gays could have a kid. The GOP is a sad organization that literally wants the elimination or subjugation of all nonwhite-nonmale-nonchristian-nonstraight people.
Because conservatives don’t consider it the correct way. A child must be conceived when a mommy, a daddy, and an Abrahamic god love each other very much and sleep together. The child can only be born vaginally or the mom isn’t a real mommy.
Except for the 78% of Conservatives in support of IVF. This article is literally about Republican lawmakers scrambling because everyone is in favor of IVF.
People generally hold that one has a right to have children (consider that things like government enforced sterilization of low income or minority groups are generally considered to be egregious breaches of the rights of the people affected.) IVF is used to assist people who wish to have children but who for medical reasons have been unable to do so, thus prohibiting it denies the people who need it in order to have kids the right to have them, thus it must be a right by proxy. Yes, things like housing and food should be rights too, but those are irrelevant to this discussion, given that it is possible for more than one thing to be an issue at a time.
All rights require assistance to a lesser or greater extent to have any practical consequence. For example, if I were to make it illegal to share any information about where polling places are and then move them somewhere one would be unlikely to find by chance, it is technically still possible to vote if you manage to find the place to do it, but if I were to then argue that what I was doing wasn't violating your right to vote because you aren't entitled to assistance in exercising that right, you'd rightly call bullshit on that argument.
Further, "rights" do not exclusively refer to things spelled out as part of the constitution like the right to vote. There isn't any explicit right to walk in the constitution that I can think of, but were I to make canes and crutches illegal, it'd absolutely be fair to say that i was taking away disabled people's right to walk.
You really think IVF is a right? Somehow a lifestyle medical procedure is a right in your min
Restricting reproductive access falls into the "eugenics" umbrella. Of almost any eugenics scheme that's ever been proposed or implemented a core feature has been preventing people who want to have kids from having kids
How do you expect anyone to care about this frivoulous nonsense when housing, the internet, food, and affordable healthcare all aren’t rights? All you’re doing is clawing for more privilege.
This is an argument against restricting rights. The GOP appears to be shifting strategy to preventing access to IVF, probably as a new front of the ongoing culture war they use as a smoke screen for everything else they do. Taking away rights that have no good reason to be taken away is absolutely worth fighting for.
When you look at the bill and the amendments they are trying to make, it truly is evil that someone wrote this on paper.
The amendments remove a lot of verbiage and instead of solidifying protections, puts them into a gray area.
Minors 16 and 17 years of age may Shall not be employed, permitted, or suffered to work the same number of hours as a
person who is 18 years of age or older.
18 year olds can work 72 hours in a week, how does a child go to school with that schedule?
Minors 15 years of age or younger may shall not be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in any gainful
occupation for more than 6 consecutive days in any one week.
No days off
Minors 16 and 17 years of age may shall not be employed, permitted, or suffered to work before 6:00 6:30a.m. Or after 11:00 p.m. or for more than 8 hours in any one day when school is scheduled the following day.
These guys are insane if they think kids are going to be able to work overtime and go to school the next day.
There's really no other way to interpret "prohibit police oversight boards" as anything other than "we're gonna let the police be as fascist as they want". If Floridians could read, they'd be very upset.
"We need police to be complicit in our overthrow of democracy and the institution of a fascist state, so we will remove oversight that might see those that align with our values removed"
Escape? I'm here for the front row seats to the category 6 hurricane that is going to take the heart of every landlord and insurance brokerage firm in the whole state.
keeptrack.substack.com
Hot