Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dostoevsky]

I might dread asking this, but is what I'm imagining this means much different from 'abusing' condoms? (You don't have to get too far into it if you don't want, but it would be helpful to know if I'm barking up the wrong tree.)

In other news, Trump did officially re-back McCarthy for speaker last night / this morning, and McCarthy just failed another vote - and lost another vote in doing so.

[martinuzz]

I'm not talking abuse by people shipping. I'm talking abuse by people who now have easy access to such medication.

Not sure what you mean, unless you are referring to such cases as where abortion pills are used to force abortion on women in a situation of abuse. But for that, the new legislation won't matter at all.
Those who inflict such wrongs upon others are already more than familiar with ways to obtain the means to those wrongs.
It's not like easier access to abortion pills will suddenly turn more people into rapists / human traffickers or pimps either.

The downside of increase in ease of access for those who would abuse it is insignificant compared to the gains for women who need it (but often can't access it because they suffer the abuse of being under the scrutiny of their conservative/religious/paternalistic families and peers).

[wobbly]

Is there some sort of mechanism for a continuous deadlock on the speaker vote? How does this play out if the position is still empty after weeks, or a month?

[Frumple]

The position is still empty and the house is still voting on it. There is not a mechanism for continuous deadlock other than "keep voting, assholes" and "lol lmao wat gov't". The record to date was two months and 133 votes, back in the 1850s, near as I can tell from checking.

[Dostoevsky]

The position is still empty and the house is still voting on it. There is not a mechanism for continuous deadlock other than "keep voting, assholes" and "lol lmao wat gov't". The record to date was two months and 133 votes, back in the 1850s.

(That time was about slavery, of course.)

Since it's more precedent than constitutional mandate (the constitution requires the House pick one, but beyond that it's mum), in theory some sort of thing could be worked out, but without a majority willing to agree on this it's unlikely you'd get a majority to agree to much else, so dysfunction would still reign.

[McTraveller]

It's not like easier access to abortion pills will suddenly turn more people into rapists / human traffickers or pimps either.

Devil's Advocate:  But easier access to guns makes people more likely to be mass murderers? What's different?

The downside of increase in ease of access for those who would abuse it is insignificant compared to the gains for women who need it (but often can't access it because they suffer the abuse of being under the scrutiny of their conservative/religious/paternalistic families and peers).

I'll wait to see the data, thanks.  Also I'd hypothesize that historically there are more "forced" abortions in conservative circles than liberal, which would be amusing if supported by data for which I'm too lazy to search.

[Micro102]

It's not like easier access to abortion pills will suddenly turn more people into rapists / human traffickers or pimps either.

Devil's Advocate:  But easier access to guns makes people more likely to be mass murderers? What's different?

That guns make it easier to kill people, but abortion pills don't make it easier to rape people?

[Dostoevsky]

Devil's Advocate:  But easier access to guns makes people more likely to be mass murderers? What's different?

My knee-jerk response here is that abortion is about mitigating consequences, not enabling/allowing the crime itself. (If working from that mindset.) So the better analogy is banning guns compared to banning dicks.

[McTraveller]

TANSTAAFL.

/shrug

[martinuzz]

Devil's Advocate:  But easier access to guns makes people more likely to be mass murderers? What's different?

Guns are used to kill people. Abortion pills aren't used to rape women, usually that's done with dicks or other tube shape objects.
If you want to make that comparison, an abortion pill would be equivalent to, say, a tissue used to wipe the fingerprints from the gun.

Also I'd hypothesize that historically there are more "forced" abortions in conservative circles than liberal, which would be amusing if supported by data for which I'm too lazy to search.

Sadly you could very well be right. Often though, in places where abortion is illegal, these forced abortions are done at best with unapproved meds ordered from China through E-Bay, or more primitive means. At least those women will now get their abortions forced upon them with FDA approved safe medication.

[hector13]

TANSTAAFL.

/shrug

It’s not free ‘cause it still requires a physician’s prescription.

[Random_Dragon]

Yeah. This is the US, does it look like we have a functioning healthcare system? :V

[McTraveller]

That's not the cost to which I was referring.  But I'm going to stop while I'm here.

[hector13]

It isn’t, but we’ve also had the discussion before, possibly multiple times, and no progress is made when it happens, just talking past one another.

[hector13]

In continuing news, Republicans incessantly bang their head against the wall in an effort to elect McCarthy as Speaker and the same thing happens: 20 hardcore Trumpettes vote against him.

The Republicans can’t abstain their way to victory (the winner needs a majority of those voting, rather than an outright majority) because the Dems 212 votes for Hakeem Jeffries would win out over McCarthy’s 201 votes from his own party, which would go down via abstentions (one person as abstained so far out of the five completed votes, a Republican) so evidently we just wait until somebody breaks.