Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Recent law they are trying to pass - Protection for Catholic hospitals, 
> which are sadly a large percentage of them, to not merely deny help to 
> women on the verge of death, due to pregnancy complications, but to also 
> "deny them the right to be transferred to some place where they can be 
> treated". The theory being that, somehow, those women are, I don't know 
> what the fuck, maybe bribing the Catholic doctors to "fake" illness, or 
> causing it themselves, in some proxy to get shipped to another hospital, 
> to receive abortions? I mean WTF? But, apparently, this is *way* more 
> important than taking jobs seriously, or creating legislation about 
> *anything* other than bullshit like this.

  I hear that in some state they are trying to redefine the legal meaning
of "rape" in such a way that it's not grounds for abortion anymore. This
not to talk about that law proposal that women seeking abortion must be
subjected to a mandatory and extensive guilt-trip by the doctor (among
other things, the doctor must make her listen to the heartbeat of the
fetus, give a long lecture about the sanctity of life, and whatnot).

  I don't really get it. Rather than these right-wing nutjobs jumping
through incredibly ridiculous hoops to make abortion illegal in practice,
why they don't simply make it illegal, period? That's what they want. Why
are they engaging in these ridiculous legal acrobatics? (Not that I would
endorse them to do that, I'm just honestly wondering. Is it some kind of
federal law that they cannot override or something?)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 7:03, Mike Raiford wrote:
> As if GB has never said that they are superior? ;)

Actually, I spent several minutes trying to figure out which George Bush you 
were talking about here.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 12:19, Warp wrote:
> why they don't simply make it illegal, period?

They tried. The supreme court decided that abortions in the first 3 months 
are so are the private business of the woman and her doctor, so you can't 
make a federal law against it. (That's the whole "Roe vs Wade" court case.)

Changing that federal law would take some 66% of the senators and 75% of the 
states agreeing to it.

> federal law that they cannot override or something?)

Yes. Read about "Roe vs Wade", which is the court case that most broadly 
covers this particular topic.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 17-10-2011 16:14, Invisible wrote:
>>> What I /have/ noticed about the USA is that they tend to assert that
>>> their way of life is the only /correct/ one.
>>
>> Yep. There are definitely people who think that way.
>
> There's probably people like that everywhere. It's just that, for
> whatever reason, this seems to be more prominent in the USA.
>
> [I deliberately use the term "USA" rather than "America" because
> strictly speaking the latter is two entire continents comprising
> multiple countries... I believe the Arrogant Worms make a lengthy song
> about this exact matter...]
>
>> If a new concept
>> comes around, and we haven't done that in the past, and it involves
>> making life better for people, it immediately gets called Socialism
>> and/or Communism.
>
> Yeah. Because Communism is completely evil, right? RIGHT??
>
> Um... I still haven't figured out *why* it's evil, but apparently it is.

Because the leaders of the communist revolution did not respect the 
properties and privileges of the rich. Besides they also did not think 
rich politically dominant churches were a good idea, hence it was 
written in the bible that the communists were evil.

OK in most cases the communists turned out to be evil, but when the 
propaganda began they had no way of knowing that. Besides they were evil 
in almost the same way as capitalists. Who was more evil: Stalin or 
Hitler, Brezhnev or Videla, Batista or Castro? And when? When they were 
in power or only in hindsight?

Post a reply to this message

On 17-10-2011 21:24, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 7:03, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> As if GB has never said that they are superior? ;)
>
> Actually, I spent several minutes trying to figure out which George Bush
> you were talking about here.

And, which one was it?


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 12:19, Warp wrote:
> > why they don't simply make it illegal, period?

> They tried. The supreme court decided that abortions in the first 3 months 
> are so are the private business of the woman and her doctor, so you can't 
> make a federal law against it. (That's the whole "Roe vs Wade" court case.)

> Changing that federal law would take some 66% of the senators and 75% of the 
> states agreeing to it.

  So instead they are trying to make it illegal de-facto, even though
*technically* it's still legal de-jure?

  Shouldn't there be a federal law against states trying to circumvent
federal laws?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2011 13:07, Warp wrote:
>    So instead they are trying to make it illegal de-facto, even though
> *technically* it's still legal de-jure?

Yes, basically. And interestingly enough, politicians all get asked about 
this, in spite of the fact that everyone knows it can't really be changed 
without a major upheaval of power.

>    Shouldn't there be a federal law against states trying to circumvent
> federal laws?

Every law can be circumvented somehow. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

>> Is it true that if people find out you don't believe in God, you will
>> *actually* be brutally murdered in your sleep? Or is that an
>> exaggeration?

> Depends, which state did you hear it happening in?
>
> Mind, that is an exaggeration of the truth, but its not that damn
> dissimilar to the reality in some places.

OK, *so* glad I decided not to take that trip to America now... o_O

Post a reply to this message

On 10/18/2011 0:57, Invisible wrote:
>>> Is it true that if people find out you don't believe in God, you will
>>> *actually* be brutally murdered in your sleep? Or is that an
>>> exaggeration?
>
>> Depends, which state did you hear it happening in?
>>
>> Mind, that is an exaggeration of the truth, but its not that damn
>> dissimilar to the reality in some places.
>
> OK, *so* glad I decided not to take that trip to America now... o_O

Actually, no, nobody actually gets murdered in their sleep for being 
atheists. You get nasty looks from neighbors, and teachers give your kids 
bad grades, and your house might even get TPed, but even that is very rare 
and limited to small towns where everyone is inbred anyway.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

>> OK, *so* glad I decided not to take that trip to America now... o_O
>
> Actually, no, nobody actually gets murdered in their sleep for being
> atheists. You get nasty looks from neighbors, and teachers give your
> kids bad grades, and your house might even get TPed

...so it's like living in England if you happen to be Asian?

> but even that is
> very rare and limited to small towns where everyone is inbred anyway.

"Small towns where everyone is inbred anyway" is TRWTF. o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message