Wendy Davis has revealed the details of her two abortions, so even though Abbott "sympathized" with her (one abortion was performed on a fetus with a brain abnormality that would not have survived long after birth, and the other was an ectopic pregnancy, still technically considered an abortion in Texas), now that this election is about abortion she has even less of a chance. If I had to guess.
And this bullshit is in the article, too:
“She definitely experienced a loss of two children, and we are sympathetic to her for that," Pojman said. "The position of our organization is that we do not favor, and we don't recommend, aborting a child who has a severe disability, the same as we can't recommend destroying a newborn child who has a severe disability. Both of them are children."
A spokeswoman for Texas Right to Life said Davis was right to end her ectopic pregnancy, because "the life of the mother must be preserved whenever both lives cannot be saved." But she said Davis should have carried the other pregnancy to term.
I'm getting really tired of the fetus with no chance to live being more important than the living, breathing mother. Not to mention the horrible trauma of going through childbirth only to then have to watch your now-born child die when there's nothing you can do about it, and then have to pay a shitload of money for it so that other people get to feel good about the death.
Still, doesn't matter, nobody in Texas thinks like that. Now she's the candidate who had an abortion, vote for Greg Abbott.
Wendy Davis has revealed the details of her two abortions, so even though Abbott "sympathized" with her (one abortion was performed on a fetus with a brain abnormality that would not have survived long after birth, and the other was an ectopic pregnancy, still technically considered an abortion in Texas), now that this election is about abortion she has even less of a chance. If I had to guess.
And this bullshit is in the article, too:
“She definitely experienced a loss of two children, and we are sympathetic to her for that," Pojman said. "The position of our organization is that we do not favor, and we don't recommend, aborting a child who has a severe disability, the same as we can't recommend destroying a newborn child who has a severe disability. Both of them are children."
A spokeswoman for Texas Right to Life said Davis was right to end her ectopic pregnancy, because "the life of the mother must be preserved whenever both lives cannot be saved." But she said Davis should have carried the other pregnancy to term.
I'm getting really tired of the fetus with no chance to live being more important than the living, breathing mother. Not to mention the horrible trauma of going through childbirth only to then have to watch your now-born child die when there's nothing you can do about it, and then have to pay a shitload of money for it so that other people get to feel good about the death.
Still, doesn't matter, nobody in Texas thinks like that. Now she's the candidate who had an abortion, vote for Greg Abbott.
It disgusts me that anyone is even allowed to say "the woman should carry the child to term regardless of what she wants" in a world where the same person will certainly not be assuring minimum income for mothers and massive state support for orphanages. Even if (at birth) every child recieved a $500k grant to cover all costs until they are 18 its still not OK to enslave the mother.
'Pro-life' people are without question the worst thing to happen to childrens health and well being since the victorians decided that giving kids a good beating morning and night in case they sinned during the day was a great idea.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+11
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
When I registered to vote in NY, I marked myself as a Democrat but for whatever reason it wasn't recorded. So I ended up missing the deadline for primaries.
I'll probably vote Hawkins or write in Teachout in the general, though, unless some kind of madness happens and the race becomes competitive.
Establishment wins all the things tonight. Coakley and Hochul in the two races that were thought of as maybe being competitive.
I wonder what Cuomo not being able to break 2/3rds will mean in the longer term. I'd doubt much of anything, but still that is surprisingly low considering New York.
Establishment wins all the things tonight. Coakley and Hochul in the two races that were thought of as maybe being competitive.
I wonder what Cuomo not being able to break 2/3rds will mean in the longer term. I'd doubt much of anything, but still that is surprisingly low considering New York.
In New York? Nothing.
Nationally? It doesn't bode well for his chance of being President soon if the base doesn't really like him. Unless the entire party shifts right he's going to have problems getting through a national primary.
Edit: Oh, and Yes! That's much lower than I expected. Serves him right.
Oh, hey, got my CA info booklet. Let's see what props we have this time around.
Prop 2 (was renamed from 44 for ~reasons~) - State rainy day fund. I knew about this one already. Basically saying "surplus is used to set up an emergency fund and to pay down our debt, not to spend on further programs," I believe. I'll need to look into it in greater detail
Prop 45 - Require Insurance Commissioner's approval before a health insurer can hike its rates.
Prop 46 - Mandatory drug tests for all physicians (no, I'm not kidding). Also, increase cap on malpractice suits, and doctors required to check new prescriptions against a drug database for....reasons? What?
Prop 47 - Requires misdemeanor instead of felony for drug/property offenses where the person has no prior conviction for serious/violent crime or sex offense. Looks like this may apply to current inmates, given the "no" side is saying "Potentially releases 10,000 felons from state prison" (except I guess they wouldn't be felons anymore :V).
Prop 48 - Some new tribes can build casinos and will make payments to govt.
Props 43 and 49 were removed from the ballot by the state supreme court.
Looks like there's going to be a Prop 1, too, sent in a supplemental book.
Aside from mandatory drug tests, not the typical levels of stupid this year.
e: Prop 43 was removed and changed and will be Prop 1.
Prop 49 was an amendment to overturn Citizens United.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) filed a lawsuit against the referendum's placement on the ballot on July 23, 2014. A legislatively-referred advisory question is an illegitimate use of the ballot since the ballot is used for law making, according to the HJTA. Jon Coupal, president of the association, said, "Legislative power can be exercised in numerous ways but this is not one of those."[17] He also equated the referendum to a public opinion poll. Coupal cited American Federation of Labor v. Eu as the basis for the lawsuit, noting, "If the people can’t do it, certainly the Legislature can’t do it, either."[22]
Derek Cressman, director of Yes on 49, responded, saying, "They are worried they can’t win this debate on substance so they are trying to prevent this debate from happening. It frankly looks like censorship."[17]
Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D) called for a judicial decision to be made before August 11, the day voter information guides go into print.[23]
On July 31, 2014, the California Third District Court of Appeal tossed out the lawsuit in a 2 to 1 vote without comment.[24]
Michele Sutter, chairperson of Yes on 49, issued a response to the ruling. She said, "We’re delighted that voters will have a chance to collectively speak out against big money in politics with their votes. How ironic it would have been for courts to tell us that billionaire campaign spending is free speech but that Californians can’t even speak back with our votes."[24]
On August 11, 2014, however, the California Supreme Court ordered Secretary of State Bowen to remove the proposition from the ballot pending court review. Bowen asked staff to remove the measure from voter information guides.[25]
Prop 46 - Mandatory drug tests for all physicians (no, I'm not kidding). Also, increase cap on malpractice suits, and doctors required to check new prescriptions against a drug database for....reasons? What?
There's actually a pretty big problem with doctors prescribing new medications to patients just because the pharma rep came to see them recently. I really, really wish I was kidding.
Also, any organization named for the man who gave California the anchor that is Prop. 13 can go and fuck themselves.
Prop 46 - Mandatory drug tests for all physicians (no, I'm not kidding). Also, increase cap on malpractice suits, and doctors required to check new prescriptions against a drug database for....reasons? What?
There's actually a pretty big problem with doctors prescribing new medications to patients just because the pharma rep came to see them recently. I really, really wish I was kidding.
Also, any organization named for the man who gave California the anchor that is Prop. 13 can go and fuck themselves.
One of the first things that many hospital networks do after gobbling up private practices is forbid their new doctors from even seeing pharmacy reps. The extent to which drugs are prescribed based on a system of bribes, kickbacks and, in some documented cases, literal sexual favors is staggering and contributes greatly to increased insurance costs.
Prop 46 - Mandatory drug tests for all physicians (no, I'm not kidding). Also, increase cap on malpractice suits, and doctors required to check new prescriptions against a drug database for....reasons? What?
There's actually a pretty big problem with doctors prescribing new medications to patients just because the pharma rep came to see them recently. I really, really wish I was kidding.
Also, any organization named for the man who gave California the anchor that is Prop. 13 can go and fuck themselves.
Okay. That's the one part of that which sounded like it could have some logic behind it, but from what I can read, the implementation/phrasing isn't terribly well done. Cap on malpractice, eh, that's an obvious kickback to the people funding the prop (trial lawyers), but "mandatory drug testing for all physicians" just....rubs me the wrong way.
Most interesting one looks to be the "felony to misdemeanor" one, because law enforcement (and DAs) are kinda/sorta split on it - the opposition is being organized by police organizations, but a number of current DAs and former policemen are coming out in favor of it.
Although looking at some of the cases where the penalties are being reduced, this is not just marijuana/etc. There's some odd ones which I'd probably prefer remain felonies.
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950
What? I didn't know writing a bad check was even a serious crime, like a felony level crime. There's more to this that I'm missing, I'm sure. But since stores are very much attached, and no one writes checks any more, why is this even a thing any more? Just a hold over to keep a handful of people in prison?
Prop 46 - Mandatory drug tests for all physicians (no, I'm not kidding). Also, increase cap on malpractice suits, and doctors required to check new prescriptions against a drug database for....reasons? What?
There's actually a pretty big problem with doctors prescribing new medications to patients just because the pharma rep came to see them recently. I really, really wish I was kidding.
Also, any organization named for the man who gave California the anchor that is Prop. 13 can go and fuck themselves.
Okay. That's the one part of that which sounded like it could have some logic behind it, but from what I can read, the implementation/phrasing isn't terribly well done. Cap on malpractice, eh, that's an obvious kickback to the people funding the prop (trial lawyers), but "mandatory drug testing for all physicians" just....rubs me the wrong way.
Most interesting one looks to be the "felony to misdemeanor" one, because law enforcement (and DAs) are kinda/sorta split on it - the opposition is being organized by police organizations, but a number of current DAs and former policemen are coming out in favor of it.
Although looking at some of the cases where the penalties are being reduced, this is not just marijuana/etc. There's some odd ones which I'd probably prefer remain felonies.
First, medical malpractice caps are very bad policy - they only benefit the insurance companies. And especially today, a cap of a quarter million is very low.
Second, I don't see why mandatory drug screening of doctors is any more questionable than screening of, say, truckers or pilots.
Third, after looking at what the database is for, it looks like the goal is to combat the flow of prescription opioids into the illegal drug market.
I'm in California, I'll be voting yes to drug test doctors. If I have to take a drug test to stock shelves at Target, you bet I'll vote to make everyone else take that same test to do what they do.
Looks like Nate Silver doesn't really like all the publicity Sam Wang's prediction model is getting. Link to a huge article detailing and defending the 538 model.
Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950
What? I didn't know writing a bad check was even a serious crime, like a felony level crime. There's more to this that I'm missing, I'm sure. But since stores are very much attached, and no one writes checks any more, why is this even a thing any more? Just a hold over to keep a handful of people in prison?
More likely that the statutes weren't indexed (this is the same issue with the medmal cap as well.) So when the law was passed, the limit was reasonable, but now, it's ridiculously low.
I'm in California, I'll be voting yes to drug test doctors. If I have to take a drug test to stock shelves at Target, you bet I'll vote to make everyone else take that same test to do what they do.
I'm in California, I'll be voting yes to drug test doctors. If I have to take a drug test to stock shelves at Target, you bet I'll vote to make everyone else take that same test to do what they do.
I'm sure hospitals and other employers can require drug tests of their doctors, just like yours does of you. I'm opposed to a proposition where people can vote to require drug tests of one another. I don't like it with welfare recipients, either.
I'm in California, I'll be voting yes to drug test doctors. If I have to take a drug test to stock shelves at Target, you bet I'll vote to make everyone else take that same test to do what they do.
I'm sure hospitals and other employers can require drug tests of their doctors, just like yours does of you. I'm opposed to a proposition where people can vote to require drug tests of one another. I don't like it with welfare recipients, either.
So, are you opposed to drug testing of truckers, pilots, and heavy machinery operators? Because that's what this is much closer to.
I'm in California, I'll be voting yes to drug test doctors. If I have to take a drug test to stock shelves at Target, you bet I'll vote to make everyone else take that same test to do what they do.
Crab-bucket what now?
I've worked some of what as far as I can tell are the most unimportant, but still necessary jobs that society has. It makes no sense that I get to take all the drug tests while people whose jobs are clearly much more important are never expected to take them. If anything Doctors should be near the top of the list of people who regularly have to take drug tests.
I'm in California, I'll be voting yes to drug test doctors. If I have to take a drug test to stock shelves at Target, you bet I'll vote to make everyone else take that same test to do what they do.
Crab-bucket what now?
I've worked some of what as far as I can tell are the most unimportant, but still necessary jobs that society has. It makes no sense that I get to take all the drug tests while people whose jobs are clearly much more important are never expected to take them. If anything Doctors should be near the top of the list of people who regularly have to take drug tests.
"I think doctors should take a drug test because they do a job that requires they not be under the influence of illegal substances" is woooooooorlds apart from "I'm forced to have my privacy invaded by taking this shitty test, so you should have to too". I'm only seeing you make one of two of those arguments.
So we're not allowed to use humour and hyperbole to highlight certain inequities? Who made you the arbiter of that? Do you insist that everybody vote using correct opinions and arguments?
So we're not allowed to use humour and hyperbole to highlight certain inequities? Who made you the arbiter of that? Do you insist that everybody vote using correct opinions and arguments?
I'm bothered less by the idea that a doctor, other than a surgeon, may be high on the job than the precedent that is set by a society that would require drug testing primarily for the most marginal types of employment. I want consistency, I see the current situation as evidence that society is interested in oppressing marginal populations, if not as a conscious effort then as an incidental one. In that we will always choose to enforce the law on those least able to fight it.
I think we can hear good arguments either way about whether drug testing should be required or is a violation of privacy rights. I want to live in a society that applies it's logic whatever it may be equally to all members.
So we're not allowed to use humour and hyperbole to highlight certain inequities? Who made you the arbiter of that? Do you insist that everybody vote using correct opinions and arguments?
Does this really bother you?
Yes, because at the end of the day, it's still a shitty argument. As was pointed out, drug testing doctors is a vastly different situation than drug testing welfare applicants, and trying to equate the two weakens your argument.
I'm bothered less by the idea that a doctor, other than a surgeon, may be high on the job than the precedent that is set by a society that would require drug testing primarily for the most marginal types of employment. I want consistency, I see the current situation as evidence that society is interested in oppressing marginal populations, if not as a conscious effort then as an incidental one. In that we will always choose to enforce the law on those least able to fight it.
I think we can hear good arguments either way about whether drug testing should be required or is a violation of privacy rights. I want to live in a society that applies it's logic whatever it may be equally to all members.
And if that logic fucks its members, including me, then I throw my support in for a good ol' mass fucking! Solidarity is for losers.
I can see enforcing it for hospital physicians and physicians with hospital admitting privileges. I don't see the need to make it any more complicated than that.
I just don't see how this would solve any potential problems. There are already safeguards in place to ensure your surgeon isn't blind drunk.
Posts
And this bullshit is in the article, too:
I'm getting really tired of the fetus with no chance to live being more important than the living, breathing mother. Not to mention the horrible trauma of going through childbirth only to then have to watch your now-born child die when there's nothing you can do about it, and then have to pay a shitload of money for it so that other people get to feel good about the death.
Still, doesn't matter, nobody in Texas thinks like that. Now she's the candidate who had an abortion, vote for Greg Abbott.
It disgusts me that anyone is even allowed to say "the woman should carry the child to term regardless of what she wants" in a world where the same person will certainly not be assuring minimum income for mothers and massive state support for orphanages. Even if (at birth) every child recieved a $500k grant to cover all costs until they are 18 its still not OK to enslave the mother.
'Pro-life' people are without question the worst thing to happen to childrens health and well being since the victorians decided that giving kids a good beating morning and night in case they sinned during the day was a great idea.
I just came back from voting, and only 8 people voted at my ward. Maybe Wu will get the pick for Lt. Governor at least.
I'll probably vote Hawkins or write in Teachout in the general, though, unless some kind of madness happens and the race becomes competitive.
Nine Term incumbent John Tierney got smoked by Seth Moulton 52/39 for MA-6.
I wonder what Cuomo not being able to break 2/3rds will mean in the longer term. I'd doubt much of anything, but still that is surprisingly low considering New York.
In New York? Nothing.
Nationally? It doesn't bode well for his chance of being President soon if the base doesn't really like him. Unless the entire party shifts right he's going to have problems getting through a national primary.
Edit: Oh, and Yes! That's much lower than I expected. Serves him right.
Prop 2 (was renamed from 44 for ~reasons~) - State rainy day fund. I knew about this one already. Basically saying "surplus is used to set up an emergency fund and to pay down our debt, not to spend on further programs," I believe. I'll need to look into it in greater detail
Prop 45 - Require Insurance Commissioner's approval before a health insurer can hike its rates.
Prop 46 - Mandatory drug tests for all physicians (no, I'm not kidding). Also, increase cap on malpractice suits, and doctors required to check new prescriptions against a drug database for....reasons? What?
Prop 47 - Requires misdemeanor instead of felony for drug/property offenses where the person has no prior conviction for serious/violent crime or sex offense. Looks like this may apply to current inmates, given the "no" side is saying "Potentially releases 10,000 felons from state prison" (except I guess they wouldn't be felons anymore :V).
Prop 48 - Some new tribes can build casinos and will make payments to govt.
Props 43 and 49 were removed from the ballot by the state supreme court.
Looks like there's going to be a Prop 1, too, sent in a supplemental book.
Aside from mandatory drug tests, not the typical levels of stupid this year.
e: Prop 43 was removed and changed and will be Prop 1.
Prop 49 was an amendment to overturn Citizens United.
Wow.
There's actually a pretty big problem with doctors prescribing new medications to patients just because the pharma rep came to see them recently. I really, really wish I was kidding.
Also, any organization named for the man who gave California the anchor that is Prop. 13 can go and fuck themselves.
One of the first things that many hospital networks do after gobbling up private practices is forbid their new doctors from even seeing pharmacy reps. The extent to which drugs are prescribed based on a system of bribes, kickbacks and, in some documented cases, literal sexual favors is staggering and contributes greatly to increased insurance costs.
Okay. That's the one part of that which sounded like it could have some logic behind it, but from what I can read, the implementation/phrasing isn't terribly well done. Cap on malpractice, eh, that's an obvious kickback to the people funding the prop (trial lawyers), but "mandatory drug testing for all physicians" just....rubs me the wrong way.
Most interesting one looks to be the "felony to misdemeanor" one, because law enforcement (and DAs) are kinda/sorta split on it - the opposition is being organized by police organizations, but a number of current DAs and former policemen are coming out in favor of it.
http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_47,_Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_(2014)
Although looking at some of the cases where the penalties are being reduced, this is not just marijuana/etc. There's some odd ones which I'd probably prefer remain felonies.
What? I didn't know writing a bad check was even a serious crime, like a felony level crime. There's more to this that I'm missing, I'm sure. But since stores are very much attached, and no one writes checks any more, why is this even a thing any more? Just a hold over to keep a handful of people in prison?
First, medical malpractice caps are very bad policy - they only benefit the insurance companies. And especially today, a cap of a quarter million is very low.
Second, I don't see why mandatory drug screening of doctors is any more questionable than screening of, say, truckers or pilots.
Third, after looking at what the database is for, it looks like the goal is to combat the flow of prescription opioids into the illegal drug market.
More likely that the statutes weren't indexed (this is the same issue with the medmal cap as well.) So when the law was passed, the limit was reasonable, but now, it's ridiculously low.
Crab-bucket what now?
I'm sure hospitals and other employers can require drug tests of their doctors, just like yours does of you. I'm opposed to a proposition where people can vote to require drug tests of one another. I don't like it with welfare recipients, either.
So, are you opposed to drug testing of truckers, pilots, and heavy machinery operators? Because that's what this is much closer to.
I've worked some of what as far as I can tell are the most unimportant, but still necessary jobs that society has. It makes no sense that I get to take all the drug tests while people whose jobs are clearly much more important are never expected to take them. If anything Doctors should be near the top of the list of people who regularly have to take drug tests.
"I think doctors should take a drug test because they do a job that requires they not be under the influence of illegal substances" is woooooooorlds apart from "I'm forced to have my privacy invaded by taking this shitty test, so you should have to too". I'm only seeing you make one of two of those arguments.
Does this really bother you?
u mad bro?
I think we can hear good arguments either way about whether drug testing should be required or is a violation of privacy rights. I want to live in a society that applies it's logic whatever it may be equally to all members.
Yes, because at the end of the day, it's still a shitty argument. As was pointed out, drug testing doctors is a vastly different situation than drug testing welfare applicants, and trying to equate the two weakens your argument.
And if that logic fucks its members, including me, then I throw my support in for a good ol' mass fucking! Solidarity is for losers.
How exactly would you enforce this anyway for a gp with a private practice?
Physicians are licensed by the state. The requirements would most likely be tied into maintaining that licensure.
More likely you'd have ot go to a certified facility and send in the proof of your test from them
I don't see what's unreasonable in 46.
I just don't see how this would solve any potential problems. There are already safeguards in place to ensure your surgeon isn't blind drunk.
Lots of races seem to be slipping through their fingers.