The Republican Thunderdome

The money is going toward the purchase and manufacturing of weapons from the U.S. This supports thousands of Americans who work in weapons manufacturing and the needed part. I am not taking any position on the bill itself, but to say no money goes to Americans is not entirely accurate.

I would rather not spend money on war, but the decision making on this isn't simply about a preferrence of where money should be spent. Another consideration is whether having Russia take Ukraine is acceptable. Historically, holding a nonintervenist policy has not resulted in a welcome outcome.

Senate passes FISA 60-34.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 20 2024 at 06:09

More bad news from government intrusion anti-freedom Texas, from the Texas Tribune:

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/15/texas-hospitals-abortion-laws/

The Texas Medical Association is asking state regulators to step in after it says several hospitals afraid of violating the state’s abortion ban have turned away pregnant patients or delayed care leading to complications, The Dallas Morning News reported.

In a letter to the Texas Medical Board — the state agency that regulates the practice of medicine — TMA officials on Wednesday said they have received complaints that hospital administrators and their legal teams are stopping doctors from providing medically appropriate care to patients with some pregnancy complications. They ask the board to “swiftly act to prevent any wrongful intrusion into the practice of medicine.”

TMA is a professional nonprofit that represents over 55,000 medical professionals in the state.
The request comes as confusion and concerns abound among Texas medical professionals over what they can and cannot do under Texas’ abortion ban.

Beyond elective abortions, there are several situations in which a doctor might advise an abortion for the safety of the patient — including ectopic pregnancies, in which a fertilized egg grows outside of the uterus, making it unviable — or provide other stabilizing treatments during hypertension and preeclampsia. Delays in treatment can cause serious health complications.

But in a post-Roe world, physicians in states where abortion has been banned have to weigh the legal implications of their actions, instead of making decisions based on what prevailing medical literature recommends. In Texas, doctors can face six-figure fines and be put in jail for any disallowed abortions.

According to the Morning News, the TMA included in its letter examples of some cases in which treatment was denied or delayed but did not name specific hospitals. In Central Texas, a physician was allegedly instructed to not treat an ectopic pregnancy until a rupture occurred, which puts patient health at serious risk, the letter says.

“Delayed or prevented care in this scenario creates a substantial risk for the patient’s future reproductive ability and poses serious risk to the patient’s immediate physical wellbeing,” the letter says.

The TMA letter also accused two other hospitals of telling doctors to turn away pregnant patients and send them home to “expel the fetus” if their water broke too soon, which can put them at risk of infection.

Not only are patients being put at risk of serious injury, but doctors could face lawsuits or the loss of their medical licenses for not providing adequate care, the TMA letter says. Failing to do so might violate the state’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine, which generally prohibits corporations or nonphysicians from practicing medicine.

The TMA’s plea comes one day after Texas sued the Biden administration to block new federal guidance reiterating to the nation’s doctors that they’re protected by federal law to terminate a pregnancy as part of emergency treatment.


The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Edited by Easy Money - April 19 2024 at 20:00

omphaloskepsis wrote: Lewian wrote: omphaloskepsis wrote: Lewian wrote: omphaloskepsis wrote:   Both the Democrat and Republican uni-party wish to reduce freedom in the USA.   If they really were a uniparty, why is there still so much freedom that they still need to reduce? Couldn't they have set the level of freedom at what they desire already in the last x hundred years? Before I answer your questions...What is your definition of freedom?  Could you be specific and/or clarify your second question?  I don't understand the second question. I'm making reference to your quote, so for the sake of answering my question I'm happy to go with your definition of freedom. My point is, assuming that uni-party stuff is true, the uni-party must have had a lot of power for a very long time. So my question is, if this is so, why didn't they use that power in a way that they wouldn't need to worry about too much freedom now (which they  according to your statement apparently do)? Can you imagine 1950s America accepting a COVID lockdown and all that went with it?  Folks losing jobs and getting arrested on a beach, defying the lockdown. Can you imagine 1950s America accepting "story time drag hour" or children's sex changes?  America's demographics were different then. Most folks attended church.  Are you familiar with the concept of boiling a frog?   It goes like this:  If you toss a frog in boiling water, the frog will jump out of the water.  However, if you put a frog in lukewarm water and slowly turn the temperature up one degree at a time...The frog won't notice until it's too late.  I don't know if it's true for a frog, but it's a solid analogy.  The "boiling frog analogy" describes human behavior.

Mirakaze wrote: omphaloskepsis wrote: After reading your post, I have to ask you.  Do you think that a nine-year-old girl should be able to have sex with a 40-year-old pedophile...just because the child says they want to have sex with the pedophile?  Do you think eight-year-olds should be able to drink as much alcohol as they want? Apples and oranges. Those situations could not conceivably lead to anything other than grave harm and are rightfully banned for that reason. You also won't see me make a defence for allowing minors to undergo sexual reassignment surgery; that's not legal anywhere except in extraordinary cases and as far as I know is just a caricature of trans-accommodating policies (in fact you're more likely to see trans activists oppose such surgery being inflicted upon minors in cases that the political right apparently doesn't see as controversial. Look up intersex genital mutilation for an example). Puberty blockers/hormone therapy is more complicated: it may leave changes that are irreversible, but if a child really is trans and is committed to this identity for the rest of their life then puberty may also leave marks on them that are irreversible. Like any medical treatment performed on young people it must be the result of a delicate process, in this case accompanied by trained psychologists to determine if this is really the best decision for the person in question. Please note however that parents consenting to such medical procedures is NOT A FACTOR in custody disputes according to the California law described in the article you posted. The only thing that matters in such a situation is whether or not the parents accept their child's gender identity. Wouldn't you agree that that is the bare minimum someone might expect a parent to do in this scenario? I've lived in Texas for my entire life. I have never been harassed in a public bathroom.  Do you have a phobia of public bathrooms?  Why did you think you would be harassed?  I've never had charges pressed against me for using the bathroom.  I am a transgender woman. My boyfriend's parents do not know that I exist, and if they did they would disown him. Before I went over there I made sure to register my visit with the Dutch embassy because I've seen how politicians in that part of the world talk about people like me in public and in the bills they write, portraying people like me as mentally disturbed sex offenders who must be exluded from public life, and the experience of my friend who still is not entirely free to this day cured me of any illusion that the legal system would be on my side if anything bad were to happen to me. Nothing did, because we were in a big city and didn't venture much outside his apartment, but I will never feel entirely safe when I'm there. I sincerely apologize to you and the person who thanked you for your post if I've legitimately made such a bad impression on you that you readily accuse me of being a liar and an apologist for pedophilia.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 18 2024 at 15:51

suitkees wrote: ^ So, again a deflection, and again two new points without factual back-up and still no reaction to your disinformation... No, I'm not going to continue this game, but omphaloskepsis wrote: My logic?  The government is using social media to censor free speech.    This disinformation was already debunked in the other thread (you're very persistent in believing falsehoods...). I claim that freedoms are being gradually stolen by the American government.  Freedoms are being stolen by multiple governments.  That said, let's limit this to America...keep it simple. 1. Do you disagree?  If so provide your argument.  Let's hear your logic, Suitkees.  One of the problems is that you often take your "claims" (opinions) for facts... but yes, I disagree.  First, I don't think that it is reasonable to say that your government is stealing your freedoms (apart from the debunked free speech censorship, you may have other examples?). It is organizing your society in a way it thinks best. No government will always have 100% support for all of its policies, but in representative democracies we can assume that those policies are supported by a large part of the population. Second, and to elaborate, I think you have a very simplistic idea of what is "freedom", but you have wisely withheld yourself from defining it. A freedom for one often impedes on the freedom of an other. For example, the freedom of a minor to affirm his gender identity vs. the freedom of the parents to limit that. You also have individual freedoms vs. shared freedoms, i.e. the interests of a society/community. For example the individual freedom of not wearing a mask during a pandemic vs. the protection of a society and minimizing contamination as much as possible by imposing mask wearing. Then, we can have the discussion of what is more important: individual freedom or the freedom of a society? I think it is all about finding a right balance. But what is "right" depends on where one wants to put more value in: individual freedom or shared freedom. Me or We? There is thus not one "freedom" but many ways in which freedom(s) can be organized - and have to be organized if you want to "make" society. And those ways depend on ideology. etc. That's what democracy is about, I think: to come to an understanding to how a society can be organized to guarantee its cohesion, and finding the right balance regarding the freedoms of individuals. I am someone who values the cohesion of a society very much and find it normal that individual freedoms are thus sometimes limited. The interests of a country are more important than the interests of an individual in that country, in my opinion. Apparently there are many Americans who find individual freedom more important than their country (and still dare to call themselves "patriots"...). Selfishness seems to be a core value to them. Not for me. It all depends of course what we are talking about. I condemn censorship, but find it normal when a government fights disinformation. In general, things are not binary but more complex. Freedom is one of those very complex things. Oh, and why are you winking to me so often...?

Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 18 2024 at 05:31

^ R i g h t   O n


Go to Hell Right Wing Fascists.

Josh  - Higher State of Consciousness