this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
419 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22655 readers
4669 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 79 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Ah yes, the party of 'keep the government out of my business!' is all for sticking their noses into other people's business. Fucking hypocrites.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago

Hey now that’s not really fair. They’re also traitors to democracy.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

With business they mean their corporate businesses.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

And rich people's private business.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 10 months ago (6 children)

How the hell do republican women even exist not to mention all the republican women in government. Does none of these affect them or are they always pregnant?

[–] [email protected] 36 points 10 months ago

Some are white and wealthy enough that the rules don't apply. Some are in abusive relationships and feel forced to vote a certain way. Some are in traditional marriages where the husband controls everything, especially what's on TV and see nothing but Fox news. Some are older and in social circles that completely avoids politics, so they just vote how husband says to vote. Some are incredibly religious and only vote the way the pastor says, because they truly think God wants that.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Abortion is wrong but if I needed one then mine is ethical because I had a good reason. /s

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Rules for thee but not for me

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Republican women are no different than Republicans generally: they think the rules are for everyone else.

They aren't going to be affected because they are special. And Christian. After all, God is behind them!

See, if brown and/or poor people would just accept JEBUS into their hearts, they too would know the love that a child would provide! God only hurts sluts. He would never do that to a god fearing woman.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

God is behind all of us. He's just non-consensually railing us day in and day out. I for one don't appreciate that dick.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

They must simply lack all critical thinking skills, and be so brainwashed that they really believe God wants it this way...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

The right wing media machine, coupled with poor education

[–] [email protected] 40 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Republicans: We need a federal database to track pregnant women!

Republicans: Putting gun owners into a federal database is a violation of personal freedoms!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Making sense isn't their thing

[–] [email protected] 36 points 10 months ago (4 children)

People are freaking out about the database thing but check out the zinger on the last 3 pages of the 23 page bill.

It looks like this law would allow a woman to accuse any man of being the father of her unborn child, force immediate child support payments while she's pregnant, and the accused man would not be able to question or confirm he is the father with a paternity test.

‘‘(35) provide that the State will establish and13 enforce child support obligations of the biological fa-14 ther of an unborn child (and subsequent to the birth15 of the child) to the mother of such child provided16 that—"

(skipping unrelated sections A-D then comes section E)

"‘(E) any measure to establish the pater-9 nity of a child (born or unborn) shall not be re-10 quired without the consent of the mother; and"

source (PDF of the text of the bill)

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago

Haha so they never had any intention at all of passing it.

Seriously crazy.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago

This is horrible, thank you for the share.

Patriarchy negatively impacts men and women.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

Your local politicians should start having a lot of children right now.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

I guess a lot of billionaires will be on the hook for child support if this passes.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 10 months ago (2 children)

They want the health records of trans people as well. They want to make lists of people, so they know who to prosecute when they make being on the lists illegal.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

I think they have worse things than prosecution in mind for trans people. We are talking about fascists here.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Yes but who will they come for first? I wonder if it will be a similar order to last time.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago

Remember how much gaslighting the fascist party was doing about this just about 2 years ago?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago

The Government of Putin can shove their agenda up their damn a-hole.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The hell is wrong with republicans, can they stop being dumb for once?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You mean evil

And no, they can't stop

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

You’d think this was something new.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

Government Databases are BAD! UNLESS it's a database putting a target on my Daughter's back! That's OK!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

They want to keep track of those future soldiers!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

All you have to do is glance at the crusader pendant around this zealots neck, to know she will kill for "the will of God" who she pretends has personally spoken to her. Any person claiming to know, or act on the "will of God" is a fraud.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

That seems pretty messed up.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As pointed out to me yesterday in a similar thread, all this person wants to do is create a website with resources trying to steer women away from abortion. Not track them.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/may/16/tweets/would-sen-katie-britts-bill-create-a-national-regi/

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

they can consent to share their contact information "which the (Department of Health and Human Services) Secretary may use to conduct outreach via phone or email to follow up with users on additional resources."

The bill doesn’t explain how this collected data would be handled or who would have access to it. Critics said that vagueness poses concerns for pregnant women’s privacy.

That is right, but also wrong.

A. Just because giving data is consensual, does not mean it can't/won't be used against you. "Anything you say or said will be used against you in a court of law"

B. There are no protections for this data. Who gets access to it?

This is a trap being masqueraded as helpful for women that are pregnant, when this is the same trap as "Life clinics" faking being abortion clinics.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

I agree with you.

B. There are no protections for this data. Who gets access to it?

The only protection the requires is that there is a "privacy policy". Here's the actual text of the bill:

on page 3

"‘(4) A mechanism for users to take an assess-8 ment through the website and provide consent to use9 the user’s contact information, which the Secretary10 may use to conduct outreach via phone or email to11 follow up with users on additional resources that12 would be helpful for the users to review."

and page 13

"have a privacy policy and procedures13 in place to ensure that—14 (i) the name, address, telephone num-15 ber, or any other information that might16 identify any woman seeking services sup-17 ported through the grant is not made pub-18 lic or shared with any other entity without19 the written consent of the woman; and20 (ii) the grantee adheres to require-21 ments comparable to those applicable22 under the HIPAA privacy regulation (as23 defined in section 1180(b)(3) of the Social24 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d–9(b)(3)))"

source - PDF

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Time to add username "Tab Comma Return" to their database.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, it’s called every pregnant woman’s blood draw sample for testing gestational diabetes. Not to mention all of the other blood draws. Does she believe that DOJ isn’t sent dna off of nearly every blood draw that doctors, and hospitals, make? Considering how many surnames and faces repeat in politics, I bet the feds all keep track of who is breeding so well, that they can predict when the next baby will be born to which family. The only ones they probably can’t forecast, after so many decades of watching families breed in this country, are the migrants that cross the border while pregnant.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

I don’t work in the lab but I guarantee where I work, none of our samples go to the government lol