Page 2 | Model response to a dilemma for women in the left-right storm (really?)

IwantToRetire · 2023-01-01T19:10:35+00:00

So not satisfied with appropriating the work, ideas and campaigning of one woman and many active supporters, some complete set of nobody film makers have taken it upon themselves to school us silly air heads on how to behave and who to talk to. Leaving aside the smug condescension of believing the have the right to tell us how to behave, this is a perfect example of where complete nobodies who exploit other people to further their own media career, then assume they are as politically relevant and analytically acute as actual activists. https://kaygreen.blog/2022/12/31/model-response-to-a-dilemma-for-women-in-the-left-right-storm/ This is the problem with the media at the moment, presenters and film makers who are just the vehicle to get voices and ideas heard, then think they are entitled to become the spokes person. Apart from anything else, did these nupties even think maybe we should ask those who the film was actually about. I know they would, having been hand selected as the appropriately politically aligned voices, also refused, but even within the unethical world of these self promoters, do they really think they take precedence. But it does gives us a clear idea of their moral compass and how they felt able to bandwagon of others work and go to extreme lengths to make sure they are never referred to or acknowledged.

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 16:25

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 16:20

By the way:

Introduced in Senate (05/03/2022)
S.4132 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Voted No May 11 2022 - 3:33 pm
Women's Health Protection Act of 2022
This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.
Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to

-prescribe certain drugs,
-offer abortion services via telemedicine, or
-immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health.

Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to
-perform unnecessary medical procedures,
-provide medically inaccurate information,
-comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or
carry out all services connected to an abortion.

In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health.
The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.
The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.
The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment.

Did you read this before you posted it? Could you explain to us your interpretation of what this bill is about please?
Add message

I ask this, because what do you think this means?

"Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to:

-offer abortion services via telemedicine, or
-immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health.

This is something you posted, correct? Care to explain what it means?

Ahh... I see. Rand Paul voted against it.

Ok. He has been very clear that he wanted the states to make decisions about abortion.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 16:23

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 16:15

Oh... so influence. And can you now show us all how he influenced the full banning of abortion when in July 2022 he co-sponsored a bill that was about abortion to 20 weeks?

Have you got any evidence that he was instrumental in his state fully banning abortion when that seems to be rather disconnected from his most recent bill at a Congress level?

Again, this is what happens when the language used is absolute rather than detailing more accurately what he believes.

By the way, yes, he supported a bill detailing Right to Life. I point to you, from your own post upthread, why that might be - to protect the life a failed aborted foetus or infant.

Introduced in Senate (01/31/2019)
S.311 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
Voted Yes Feb 25 2020 - 4:06 pm
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement.
A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony.
A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill.

By the way:

Introduced in Senate (05/03/2022)
S.4132 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Voted No May 11 2022 - 3:33 pm
Women's Health Protection Act of 2022
This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.
Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to

-prescribe certain drugs,
-offer abortion services via telemedicine, or
-immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health.

Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to
-perform unnecessary medical procedures,
-provide medically inaccurate information,
-comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or
carry out all services connected to an abortion.

In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health.
The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.
The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.
The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment.

Did you read this before you posted it? Could you explain to us your interpretation of what this bill is about please?

@Helleofabore

No point in posting yet more evidence because you do not read it or do not comprehend it.

His bill on right to life from conception is a completely different bill from the born alive abortion survivor protection act. He didn’t put forth a bill giving every unborn the Constitutional right to Life to cover any babies that already born alive. The two have nothing to do with each other- other than to uphold the sanctity of life from conception through to after being born.

Did you read this before you posted it? Could you explain to us your interpretation of what this bill is about please?

On the next question you have obviously not read the bit where he voted NO. I, on the other hand, did read it. Would have been a great law, no? Protecting womens rights to an abortion from federal restrictions….

Voted No May 11 2022 - 3:33 pm Women's Health Protection Act of 2022

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 16:20

By the way:

Introduced in Senate (05/03/2022)
S.4132 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Voted No May 11 2022 - 3:33 pm
Women's Health Protection Act of 2022
This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.
Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to

-prescribe certain drugs,
-offer abortion services via telemedicine, or
-immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health.

Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to
-perform unnecessary medical procedures,
-provide medically inaccurate information,
-comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or
carry out all services connected to an abortion.

In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health.
The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.
The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.
The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment.

Did you read this before you posted it? Could you explain to us your interpretation of what this bill is about please?
Add message

I ask this, because what do you think this means?

"Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to:

-offer abortion services via telemedicine, or
-immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health.

This is something you posted, correct? Care to explain what it means?

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 16:18

Britinme · 06/01/2023 16:10

@Helleofabore - very little direct influence. State laws are the purview of each state's legislature and their governor and court system. They are governed by federal law, but anything not explicitly covered by that is up to the states. So as Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision and never codified by the federal government, now it has been rolled back old trigger laws invoking abortion bans in highly conservative states are coming into play.

However in Kentucky a ballot question codifying "no right to an abortion" into the state constitution in Kentucky was soundly defeated in the midterms, which gives us all hope. Abortion bans are not approved of by the majority of voters. Progress is very slow though.

Yes. this was my understanding.

This man, who really is irrelevant to this discussion, may have had influence, but that this 'fully ban' abortion narrative seems to be counter to other things that he has co-sponsored.

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 16:15

Oh... so influence. And can you now show us all how he influenced the full banning of abortion when in July 2022 he co-sponsored a bill that was about abortion to 20 weeks?

Have you got any evidence that he was instrumental in his state fully banning abortion when that seems to be rather disconnected from his most recent bill at a Congress level?

Again, this is what happens when the language used is absolute rather than detailing more accurately what he believes.

By the way, yes, he supported a bill detailing Right to Life. I point to you, from your own post upthread, why that might be - to protect the life a failed aborted foetus or infant.

Introduced in Senate (01/31/2019)
S.311 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
Voted Yes Feb 25 2020 - 4:06 pm
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement.
A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony.
A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill.

By the way:

Introduced in Senate (05/03/2022)
S.4132 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Voted No May 11 2022 - 3:33 pm
Women's Health Protection Act of 2022
This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.
Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to

-prescribe certain drugs,
-offer abortion services via telemedicine, or
-immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health.

Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to
-perform unnecessary medical procedures,
-provide medically inaccurate information,
-comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or
carry out all services connected to an abortion.

In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health.
The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.
The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.
The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment.

Did you read this before you posted it? Could you explain to us your interpretation of what this bill is about please?

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 16:14

Britinme · 06/01/2023 16:10

@Helleofabore - very little direct influence. State laws are the purview of each state's legislature and their governor and court system. They are governed by federal law, but anything not explicitly covered by that is up to the states. So as Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision and never codified by the federal government, now it has been rolled back old trigger laws invoking abortion bans in highly conservative states are coming into play.

However in Kentucky a ballot question codifying "no right to an abortion" into the state constitution in Kentucky was soundly defeated in the midterms, which gives us all hope. Abortion bans are not approved of by the majority of voters. Progress is very slow though.

Not sure 52% for the vote counts as “soundly defeated” imho.
It was a close thing.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 16:12

Each state has its own constitution which is not the same as the US Constitution though it may not enact anything forbidden by the US Constitution.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 16:10

@Helleofabore - very little direct influence. State laws are the purview of each state's legislature and their governor and court system. They are governed by federal law, but anything not explicitly covered by that is up to the states. So as Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision and never codified by the federal government, now it has been rolled back old trigger laws invoking abortion bans in highly conservative states are coming into play.

However in Kentucky a ballot question codifying "no right to an abortion" into the state constitution in Kentucky was soundly defeated in the midterms, which gives us all hope. Abortion bans are not approved of by the majority of voters. Progress is very slow though.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 16:09

Britinme · 06/01/2023 16:05

@Onnabugeisha "Perhaps you should read a fucking thread or two before making stupid assumptions."

And yet my impression was formed by reading your contributions on several threads. Again, perhaps you should reflect on why you give that impression.

Sure it was. 🤣

Britinme · 06/01/2023 16:05

@Onnabugeisha "Perhaps you should read a fucking thread or two before making stupid assumptions."

And yet my impression was formed by reading your contributions on several threads. Again, perhaps you should reflect on why you give that impression.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 16:05

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 16:02

Britinme

While you are here. Can you please explain to me exact powers that a senator has over their state's laws?

Apart from influence?

It’s influence, access to big donors for election campaigns and mentoring for future career moves like running for Congress.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 16:03

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:58

@Onnabugeisha then perhaps you might find it fruitful to reflect on why you give that impression.

Perhaps you should read a fucking thread or two before making stupid assumptions.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 16:03

@Onnabugeisha - interesting. I doubt Senator Paul would approve of my donations and voluntary work occasionally for Planned Parenthood.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 16:02

GrinitchSpinach · 06/01/2023 15:58

It is weird that a person with such an interest in the senator from Kentucky has reversed his first and last names so repeatedly on this thread. The senator is called Rand Paul, not "Paul Rand."

Nevertheless, the senator is not really the topic of this thread. This is getting pretty tedious.

To bring it back on-topic, I liked what Jennifer Gingrich had to say on Twitter about the Tucker/no Tucker dispute. Screenshot attached.

I’m dyslexic so sue me. There’s no weirdness, but a disability

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 16:02

Britinme

While you are here. Can you please explain to me exact powers that a senator has over their state's laws?

Apart from influence?

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 16:02

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:50

@Onnabugeisha - that's because he has that agenda. Those of us who support access to abortion say "anti choice". You really are quite unfamiliar with things on this side of the Atlantic aren't you? Luckily it's irrelevant to the UK situation.

Stop nitpicking. If I said Paul Rand is anti-choice some wanker will appear and
say but but according to his website he is pro-life. Kind of like you are.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:59

@GrinitchSpinach - yes!

GrinitchSpinach · 06/01/2023 15:58

It is weird that a person with such an interest in the senator from Kentucky has reversed his first and last names so repeatedly on this thread. The senator is called Rand Paul, not "Paul Rand."

Nevertheless, the senator is not really the topic of this thread. This is getting pretty tedious.

To bring it back on-topic, I liked what Jennifer Gingrich had to say on Twitter about the Tucker/no Tucker dispute. Screenshot attached.

Model response to a dilemma for women in the left-right storm (really?)

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:58

@Onnabugeisha then perhaps you might find it fruitful to reflect on why you give that impression.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:56

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:48

I'm not heckling. I'm joining in a discussion. Do you have a problem with women who like to do that? Gosh - is it uncomfortable to be laughed at? Is that as uncomfortable as some women might find it sharing a changing room with a person with a penis? Or as uncomfortable as some female prisoners might find it sharing a cell or showers with a rapist she can't get away from? Or as uncomfortable as women who've slogged to get to the top of their sport to lose to a male-bodied person who can't hack it in the men's team?

No it’s not, obviously. What you think I’m a TRA? That is what is excusing your random little digs? I’m not a fucking TRA. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

We have no hope of defending womens rights if you are going blindly jump in on a thread and assume whoever @Helleofabore is grinding an axe on today is a fucking TRA.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:51

@Helleofabore
All this shows is that you have a habit of using absolutist terms such as 'ban' when the reality is more complex that an 'all out ban' which is what your terminology has been referring to.

YES I used ban because that is exactly what Paul Rand has been fighting for. You can’t even bother to read evidence given to you on a silver spoon.

This bill, is the bill he sponsored which would ban abortion from conception. There is nothing more of a total ban than that:

”Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.99 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Life at Conception Act of 2021
This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.
Nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.”

Kentucky already has made abortions illegal….as in banned. Even though he is the Kentucky senator at the Federal level, he was part of making that happen.

He has succeeded in getting abortion banned in his State and he is continuing to fight to get it banned at the Federal level too.

Do you believe that the English government 'bans' abortions? Is that the language you wish to use about the legal status of abortion in England?
Fuck no, because we haven’t banned abortions. How can you even compare the U.K. to Kentucky and act like abortion rights are even remotely similar? They are polar opposites, and that’s a fact, not me using “polarised language”

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:50

@Onnabugeisha - that's because he has that agenda. Those of us who support access to abortion say "anti choice". You really are quite unfamiliar with things on this side of the Atlantic aren't you? Luckily it's irrelevant to the UK situation.

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:50

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:19

Do you or do you not agree that feminists who are prioritising sex over gender are integrally also fighting for equality and equity for females?

Because that is not my interpretation of :

"Im sorry but the vast majority of GC feminists are not campaigning for “equality of opportunity” they are campaigning for the definition of woman and single sex spaces as I listed above."

Which you could easily have clarified previously.

Show quote history

Do you or do you not agree that feminists who are prioritising sex over gender are integrally also fighting for equality and equity for females?

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:49

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:43

Interesting that you use the phrase "pro-life". We tend to say "anti choice" over here.

That is interesting.

I must admit that I have found the label 'pro-life' to be an umbrella that actually leads to confusion. Because it can be said that the current English law is 'pro-life' because it cuts off at around 24 weeks if the circumstances don't fit the exceptions.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:48

I'm not heckling. I'm joining in a discussion. Do you have a problem with women who like to do that? Gosh - is it uncomfortable to be laughed at? Is that as uncomfortable as some women might find it sharing a changing room with a person with a penis? Or as uncomfortable as some female prisoners might find it sharing a cell or showers with a rapist she can't get away from? Or as uncomfortable as women who've slogged to get to the top of their sport to lose to a male-bodied person who can't hack it in the men's team?