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

[IwantToRetire]

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.

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 - 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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

It’s how the Political parties work. It’s common knowledge. If a politician at the state legislature wants a shot at Congress, they have to be sponsored and selected by their party. this means introductions, mentor-protege relationships, and access to big donors for election campaigns. You want to talk purity politics? Well the Republican Party is a master at it.

Youre referring to the making it a criminal offence to do an abortion after 20 weeks bill….that’s not his bill. That’s a bill he voted on. And of course any bill that chips away at abortion rights a criminalising abortions is a big YES from him.

Basically although Rand Paul (like his father Ron Paul) is elected as a Republican, he is essentially a Libertarian, which is not altogether the same thing.

But frankly we should drop discussion of Rand Paul because he really is irrelevant to this. Tarring somebody by association because of agreement on a specific issue is really the topic at hand.

He says he is a Libertarian but that’s more about his view on gun laws and less about his view on controlling womens bodies.

Paul is a Christian and an active member of his church. Over here that means a lot more in terms of political stances than it tends to in the UK. Anti-abortion stances are more closely aligned with conservative Christianity than they tend to be in the UK.

Yes, he has been clear he wanted the states to make decisions and publicised that over the years because he knew a trigger law banning abortion in his State of Kentucky was ready to go since 2019. And since then he has run interference protecting the State law by voting NO on any Congressional attempt to codify abortion rights for women (including the law we just discussed)

You know what issue is not published on any of his pages? There is a noted absence of anything to do with womens sex based rights. He may have publicly given a head nod to keeping TW from competing against women in womens sports, but nowhere in his campaign is there anything remotely related to it listed as an issue in his running platform (aka manifesto).
randpaul.com/issues/

The absence of this has me questioning why Riley voted for him as he made ZERO promises to voters in regards to womens sex based rights. I cannot assume she voted for him over an issue that he didn’t even bother to publish on his webpage to his voters. That’s why the argument, oh she’s voting for the best candidate because she agrees on one issue, but not another doesn’t wash for me. Womens sex based rights isn’t even an issue according to his websites.

The atmosphere around women's sex-based rights isn't quite the same here as it is in the UK as far as I can tell. Possibly this is because of the self-ID laws in Scotland and the court cases with Forstater and Bailey. If I wasn't British and following UK discussion threads about this, I wouldn't have known about any of that.

Yes, they are not the same. I have family still in several States, including cousins in rural Kentucky who run a campsite.

And yet he co-sponsored a bill in January 2022 that was about legalised abortion?

Do you see there is something of a disconnect here?

Either way, you can continue on. I am going to say that if you don't call the English abortion laws pro-life, then there seems to be something of a disconnect in this bill

S.61 - Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - co sponsored (and on your list on p. 17)

"This bill establishes a new criminal offense for performing or attempting to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more."

www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61/cosponsors

which is consistent with

S.2311 — 115th Congress (2017-2018) - co sponsor
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - fetus is 20 weeks or more.

S.3275 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) - co sponsor
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - fetus is 20 weeks or more.

S.1325 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) - co sponsor
Woman’s Right To Know Act
To ensure that women seeking an abortion are informed of the medical risks associated with the abortion procedure and the major developmental characteristics of the unborn child, before giving their informed consent to receive an abortion.

and the declaration that he sought to fully ban abortion.

He has sought to defund it from government coffers which I have stated I disagree with. He has sought to ensure that pregnant minors have their parent's consent .... this is not so clear cut. He has sought to state that life begins at conception, which by the way is similar to the restrictions preventing experimentation on embryos.

He has sought to establish that while consistently supporting abortion up to 20 weeks.

I have bolded this just for readers. I am sure that they can see that there is inconsistency is the portrayal of him fully 'banning' abortion as you wish to continue to do and the facts.

Either way. I am done discussing Rand Paul.

As I said, my focus was on Riley Gaines.

I don't believe one poster on this thread has said this man was supporting women's rights outside the sport issue.

And again, he is irrelevant except for Riley Gaines doing an ad with him and speaking at rallies about women's sports.

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

here here!

Just in case I missed the answer to this in the past couple of pages.

Could you please confirm:

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?

To be clear. That you cannot fight for prioritising sex over gender without also fighting for equality and equity for females?

Oh dear. I have been having to only pay half attention to this and I have realised that I posted something very unclear.

There seems to be something of a disconnect with a senator co-sponsoring THREE (not one, but THREE) bills supporting abortion to 20 weeks and the narrative that this senator wants to ban all abortion.

Something is not quite adding up here.

chicken, you think Tucker Carlson is gender critical

I think the 'making stupid assumptions' boat has sailed for you

Yeah. I don't think he is 'gender critical'. I think he believes that biological sex cannot change. For some different motivation.