Saik0

We assume that 41.7 million women strictly adhere to the B4 movement.

You cannot make that assumption. That was the point of my post some 5-6 posts up.

Korea IS A monolith when it comes to a number of factors. Culturally Korea is the antithesis of “diverse”. My point is that America is nothing similar to Korea culturally to pull this off.

Further just because they voted for Kamala is not a marker or evidence that they would even be on board with this type of response/campaign. So your number is flawed from the get go.

And the premise is self defeating. If you’re refusing to have kids and teach them your beliefs, all you’ll have are kids that belong to the other party. You will effectively just breed your ideals out of existence. This is one of the primary reasons that most religions are still around, they tend to (statistically) have van loads of children.

This also ignores the fact that those who would be willing to participate in such a campaign were likely to never have or have few children. Where-as those who disagree with this type of stance are going to be the religious types that statistically have more children anyway.

So let’s take your example and apply more relevant controls on it… You’d at best get maybe 30% participation. And that 30% would be most likely to only represent 0-2 children over their lifetime. I bet after accounting for that you’re closer to maybe a decrease of 10-20% birthrate… and you’d simply breed your ideal out of society in a matter of a generation or two.

Removed by mod

Once again. No. What lost the democrats the win was Kamala. Biden refusing to step down earlier so proper primaries could be done (not sure why they didn’t just hold primaries ANYWAY). The democrat party proved in 2020 that nobody wanted or even like Kamala (https://www.vox.com/2019/11/20/20953284/kamala-harris-polls-2020-election or lookup any poll from 2019). Her inability to actually talk about her platform (and how she’ll attain her actual goals) and answer the question being asked lost her a lot too. A hard focus on issues that were not “top of mind” for the majority of the country didn’t help either. Not some conspiracy that a handful of republicans are pulling the strings everywhere. People were simply unmotivated to vote for someone who couldn’t answer how she’d do any of what she claimed to want to do.

Regardless of what you think the border IS a valid problem.

Now there’s some magic plan? Either they’re stupid or masterminds. You can’t really have it both ways. Nobody is out there convincing people that women aren’t human and have no rights. Stop with your nonsense.

Yeah no. Continuing this rhetoric is exactly how the Democrats will continue to lose elections. Making vast assumptions about men and telling them they’re lesser is what drove away voters for the past 4 years. The vast majority of men have no desire or whim to do any of what you claim.

Edit: Just realized the swipe typo. Corrected.

Korea IS A monolith when it comes to a number of factors. Culturally Korea is the antithesis of “diverse”.

My point is that America is nothing similar to Korea culturally to pull this off.

I feel like this is probably pretty effective. I feel like it should be a thing.

It isn’t. They will simply import women from other countries. And this election alone proves the fact that all women are not a monolithic group. You’re not going to get a majority to follow this trend.

But… That could be what it adds on. Gotta use the right tool to capture the ghost. That way identification is still relevant.

the first is a lot of personal risk; the 2nd is minimal risk

This flies in the face of the article though… it expounds quite a lot that it’s hard to sue for this situation at all. With the reviewing hospital doing the procedures in house quite often as they get referrals all the time.

But because the delays and discharges occurred in an area of the hospital classified as an emergency room, lawyers said that Texas law set a much higher burden of proof: “willful and wanton negligence.”

It’s clearly NOT a lot of risk since the burden of proof for that lawsuit would be effectively insurmountable. To the point that the no lawyer is willing to take the case according to the article. If it’s that hard to put a lawsuit together on the matter, why would a doctor be scared about conducting an abortion that was already covered as an exception to the law already? I’m not seeing it. I’m not buying the excuse.

It’s not like sepsis is undocumented and unknown to the medical community. It’s not hard to justify the required treatment through literal decades of medical cases that have been studied and there’s specific exemptions in place for medical necessity in TX (and most[qualifier only because I have checked all] other states with a “ban”). The only way this situation make sense is if these places didn’t actually have the doctor on hand/staffed and it was some other medical provider that didn’t have power to actually make the decision. In which case there’s a whole 'nother bag of worms of a problem that needs to be addressed. If it’s not negligence on the doctor’s behalf (whether that be due to laziness,ignorance,fear, whatever), it’s because there wasn’t a doctor at all like an RN calling the shots. But the article claims to have gone through everything and doesn’t share with us, so I have to assume the former.

This smells a lot like “cops need immunity otherwise they won’t investigate stuff”. No… they need to do their job better.

the delays at the 3rd hospital

My statement/arguments were more for the first two visits. I feel (and I’m no doctor) was that it was already too late by visit 3. I don’t think she was going to make it at that point regardless.

is that they shouldn’t be hard cases

Sepsis IS ALWAYS a hard case unless you catch it very very early. They delayed her significantly and she was already down the path of symptoms. I’m not sure that shrugging of the hard case of potential sepsis (for the first one that didn’t bother checking her thoroughly) and confirmed sepsis for the second hospital… is anyway at all related to the case being hard because of “abortion”.

Some said the first ER missed warning signs of infection that deserved attention. All said that the doctor at the second hospital should never have sent Crain home when her signs of sepsis hadn’t improved. And when she returned for the third time, all said there was no medical reason to make her wait for two ultrasounds before taking aggressive action to save her.

Hawkins noted that Crain had strep and a urinary tract infection, wrote up a prescription and discharged her. Hawkins had missed infections before. Eight years earlier[…]

This has nothing to do with abortion ban. This has everything to do with shitty doctors. None of this required or even remotely called for any abortion. And should that first doctor NOT have been allowed to keep their license from previous cases of being a bad doctor… A women and her child probably would be alive today.

The other facility that examined the case was also in Texas. Clearly the “ban” doesn’t stop them.

The well-resourced hospital is perceived to have more institutional support to provide abortions and miscarriage management, the doctor said. Other providers “are transferring those patients to our centers because, frankly, they don’t want to deal with them.”

Can’t blame a “ban” if there’s places that can and do legally do it.

This is shitty doctors/hospitals blaming to the law to skirt around hard cases that they simply don’t want to deal with.

But because the delays and discharges occurred in an area of the hospital classified as an emergency room, lawyers said that Texas law set a much higher burden of proof: “willful and wanton negligence.”

Now this is a shame… This is what TX should be fixing. Malpractice shouldn’t need a higher standard in an ER

All in all, I’m not sure how this is related to the abortion “ban” in any way shape or form. So why is it in the article/OP at all? Especially since in this case, it would have been covered regardless…

Section 170A.002 prohibits a person from performing, inducing, or attempting an abortion. There is an exception for situations in which the life or health of the pregnant patient is at risk. In order for the exception to apply, three factors must be met: A licensed physician must perform the abortion.
The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function” if the abortion is not performed. “Substantial impairment of a major bodily function” is not defined in this chapter.
The physician must try to save the life of the fetus unless this would increase the risk of the pregnant patient’s death or impairment.

This article is referencing new bills that will disenfranchise legitimately registered voters

No. This is what you stated. Instead of showing where any disenfranchisement would happen you quoted

Some Democrats contend the measures could create hurdles for legal voters

This is not evidence of any disenfranchisement is occurring Instead you’re just wildly speculating that there’s some random clear pattern of some sort that simply doesn’t exist.

Some people believe the world is flat. That doesn’t make the statement true. They provided no clear example of how any of it could be doing what they claim it would do. So that random statement starting with “some democrats”… is meaningless.

By changing the language from “all citizens”, it sets up opportunities to selectively disenfranchise those citizens who are able and registered to vote.

No it doesn’t because the verbiage is “ONLY citizens” as the replacement. It’s still VERY clear that citizens are to vote. What it clears up is any argument that non-citizens should also be allowed to vote.

All of the legislation and proposals in this area come from Republicans trying to make it harder for non-citizens to vote.

Yes… Which they can’t do anyway.

https://lemmy.saik0.com/comment/3543053

The ballot initiatives only clarifies and fixes verbiage to make it more clean. Nothing about this is actually making it any harder for legitimate citizens to vote.

I might even go another step and say that it’s an effort to delegitimize our elections by claiming fraud to pave the way for illegitimate power grabs (like Jan 6).

If you say so.

This article is referencing new bills that will disenfranchise legitimately registered voters

Please quote where it says that. I see no such statement.

What’s on the ballot?

Republican-led legislatures in eight states have proposed constitutional amendments on their November ballots declaring that only citizens can vote.

Proposals in Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin would replace existing constitutional provisions stating that “every” citizen or “all” citizens can vote with new wording saying “only” citizens can vote. Supporters contend the current wording does not necessarily bar noncitizens from voting.

In Idaho and Kentucky, the proposed amendments would explicitly state: “No person who is not a citizen of the United States” can vote. Similar wording won approval from Louisiana voters two years ago.

Voters in North Dakota, Colorado, Alabama, Florida and Ohio passed amendments between 2018 and 2022 restricting voting to “only” citizens.

What about changing verbiage to be clear is “Disenfranchise”?

Nothing disenfranchising about unlinking 2 completely different systems that really shouldn’t have been linked to begin with. Licensing drivers and voting together automatically doesn’t make sense if you’re granting licenses to those who aren’t eligible to vote…

If it happens so little that it doesn’t matter, then why relax the standard? It’s clearly working then. You spook people who think it could happen when you do that. There’s no positive to doing that. So why do it?

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

You have a better chance of getting a clear picture of Bigfoot than you do of having a voter fraud incident in your jurisdiction.

Just because you don’t see it. doesn’t mean it’s not there. It would be entirely possible that there is no enforcement… and thus no records of those events happening.

Just like “illegal” border crossings. Current numbers state “Nationwide Encounters” is the number that CBP publishes. That’s not the number of border crossings. That’s the number of people that law enforcement has encountered and handled. This clearly ignores those who weren’t “encountered” but still made it over. Part of that “encountered” number would be things like, “how many border guards do we have to actually ‘encounter’ these people?” If you fired 100% of the border guard force. Well your “Nationwide Encounters” stats would also drop to near 0. That doesn’t mean that there are no longer any border crossings.

Poll workers collecting votes on voting day have no way to validate if your voter registration is not valid. It’s either you’re on the list or not. And in a lot of jurisdictions, simply getting a driver’s license is enough to get your name on that list, even if you aren’t allowed to vote otherwise.

Let’s make some safe presumptions. There are at least some non-zero amount of people who vote illegally (ignore if they’re “illegal immigrants” or not, just in general). How is discarding their votes and pursuing those felony charges enforced? Is that effective? If the answer is “poll workers”, how are they supposed to know who on their registers are not supposed to be there in states that do auto-registration? There is discussion to have here without even bringing up a singular specific source of fraud like this article does.

But this “overall” plan was basically fictional—it was a model, and apparently not an accurate one. Georgia Tech doesn’t have a unified IT setup; it has hundreds of different IT setups, including a different one at most research labs.

Yes… this is actually common. Your typical state school is actually made up of many different colleges working in tandem with each other. The nursing “school” is different than the law “school” at your university. Often even holding completely different names internally.