ChiGoose

I don't think I would do that if I were in their shoes unless my lawyer was with me and approved.

Something I've noticed lately with a lot of conservative proposals is that they are often based in common sense terms but do not adequately apply the proposed solutions to the nitty gritty real life details. Solutions like "the legislative branch should just legislate" ignores that, at the federal level, our legislature is hopelessly broken and unable to respond to the needs and wants of the American public. At the state level, legislatures vary wildly in both competence and willingness to actually address this situation (or make it worse). People like me who were worried about Roe being overturned were concerned that our legislative bodies would be unable or unwilling to properly address this in a way that protects people. Thankfully for my family, we live in Illinois with a governor who cares and a legislature that was smart enough to anticipate this and enact protections before the Dobbs decision. But tens of millions of Americans are not so lucky, and many states seem to be pushing laws that will make things even more difficult for people to get adequate healthcare and even proposing to eliminate exceptions for rape or *****. Another side of this is completely ignoring the confusion that even a well-crafted law can create. Law is complex, medicine is even more so. Laws about medicine that leave gray areas are already causing confusion about what doctors might or might not be liable for. Even if the law allows for the use of something like methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis, the bounty aspect of some of these laws mean that a doctor who proscribed it might end up being sued for suspicion of facilitating an abortion and have to take the time, effort, and money to defend themselves. So now we are in a situation where many doctors are not sure if they can treat their patients, or if they can, worrying they might get sued anyway. Women across the country are not sure they'll be able to get needed treatment, or may have to spends hundreds or thousand of dollars to travel to get it. And the solution being offered is simply "well, let's hope that the legislatures who we deride as corrupt and incompetent on a regular basis really step up to the plate and solve all of this for us." It's just not a convincing argument unless you ignore the reality of the situation.

No, I thought throwing away 50 years of law without keeping any guardrails would lead to a ton of problems that would harm a lot of people. Seems pretty spot on prediction, honestly.

No, no, you see, we're not allowed to look at other countries for comparison. If we don't like the current president, then everything bad is 100% their fault and anything about similar problems elsewhere is non-admissible.

And in the meantime, screw anybody who has an immune disease!

Womp womp.

Did you eat paint chips as a child?

I know you're just being a flippant ass, but yes, they will fill these prescriptions for men while denying them for women: https://news.yahoo.com/us-abortion-ruling-threatens-access-011837332.html

Post-Roe, many autoimmune patients lose access to ‘gold standard’ drug

US abortion ruling threatens access to arthritis drug Oh look, it's the incredibly predictable consequences of Dobbs.

Exclusive: Watch Uvalde school shooting video obtained by Statesman showing police response The video is incredibly difficult to watch, but I do recommend reading the article. Two screenshots that tell you all you need to know: Here's a good guy with a gun, checking out his phone with a Punisher logo wallpaper while children are murdered down the hall And here's another good guy with a gun, getting some hand sanitizer while children are murdered down the hall.

It's hard for me to imagine seeing unending evidence of corruption and a disgusting disregard for the average American and the rule of law, to only judge those on a political institution and not in my own conscience. Maybe it's easy for you. But for me, I will not judge right or wrong by what is politically popular.

It's hard to imagine that those crusading against Roe actually cared about being "pro-life" since most of them also opposed policies that would actually reduce the number of abortions (comprehensive sex ed, easy access to contraceptives) or help people support a kid so they wouldn't even have to consider it (universal healthcare, paid parental leave, child tax credit). I do not know you, so I am not accusing you of being one of these people. But something that is incredibly frustrating to me is the "pro-life" contingent that supported policies that made it harder to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, harder to manage a pregnancy, and harder to raise a child; all while supporting a singular policy that they knew (or should have known) would not end abortions, but would only make abortions less safe, and would endanger women's health and even their lives. If they truly wanted a common ground, something to make it easier to have kids, less likely for people to have abortions, they would have found a willing partner in many people like myself. Proven methods of avoiding unwanted pregnancies (unlike failed "abstinence only" policies), Pro-natalist policies to encourage kids, to give families the support they need, to ensure that a woman's healthcare needs are met. But they generally oppose such policies. It's hard to draw any conclusion other than the fact that it's not actually about stopping abortions. It's not actually about promoting life. If it were, Roe wouldn't be necessary because we would have a robust system that prevented unwanted pregnancies while making it easier for people to have kids they want. If the vocal "Pro-Life" contingent actually cared about life and actually cared about reducing abortions, Roe wouldn't be necessary. They don't want that and it tells you everything you need to know about them.

Fetterman is pretty relatable:

There already are funds, and I do donate, but that's a wholly inadequate response. It must be nice to be able to hand wave this away while people are suffering consequences of the decision you support. It also must be nice to have confidence that the same legislatures that are passing laws that cause confusion and prevent people from getting the healthcare they need will be suddenly inspired with divine knowledge on how to fix this when, in reality, they are far more likely to make things worse.

This is pretty telling. It’s almost as if some people cannot understand why someone would do something that didn’t benefit them personally. Hearings held 5 months before an election are a terrible way to influence the election. If that’s what this was all about, they would hold the hearings in September and October instead. But for people with no principles, where power is the only goal, it’s hard to understand that maybe some things are not done for personal gain. If you’re judging the hearings based on the impact to the midterms, then you’re really just telling on yourself.

Nah, just keep the guardrails of Roe and Casey in place. Also, why don't you go tell those people who have to spend money on plane tickets just to get proper care to be patient?

Twitter sues Musk after he tries backing out of $44 billion deal

Don't disagree, but I just found it kind of funny to have these two next to each other. Schumer may not have lost his "fastball", but Mitch has been throwing 105 MPH heaters his whole career while Chuck has been topping out at 80 MPH the whole time.

It's a deflection tactic, but clearly it's not true: Almost 6 in 10 say they are following Jan 6 committee's work closely

That line actual came from a Trump appointee.

Wait, did Trump attempt to tamper with a witness this week? If this is true, he's even dumber than I've thought.

It's so weird how any time someone who promotes these claims has to talk under oath, they stop promoting them. Except Sidney Powell, I suppose. So in the world of people who will talk about this under oath, you can have: Sidney Powell And I'll take: Trump's DoJ Trump's Campaign Trump's White House Lawyers The election administrators The courts overseeing the election lawsuits Basically anyone who isn't Sidney Powell Rudy Giuliani during one of the court cases when he said it wasn't fraud Yeah, I think I'm pretty happy with my side of the equation on this topic.

I'll take the sworn testimony from Trump's handpicked DoJ leadership over some rando on the internet. But if you're looking for comfy products from someone who agrees with you in earnest and is definitely not promoting the same theories as a grift, you can try this promo code for a deal:

Not hard to believe. Most Americans were tired of Trump's crap. Enough Republicans defected that there is now an entire industry for Never-Trump Republicans. 2020 was the first time that I personally voted for a Democrat for president, and I wasn't alone in that.