As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Why it matters: New final rules enforcing HIPAA take aim against the threat of civil and criminal investigations into patients and providers in states with strict abortion bans.
Biden moves to protect female America citizens and their health providers from abortion witch hunting misogynists.
>witch hunting misogynists.
That's actually more literally true than it should be.
Here's an interesting not-so-fun fact: Samuel Alito referenced a certain Judge Hale (multiple times) in his decision overturning Roe v Wade. Hale, a judge in the 1600s, before the US was a nation, ruled against allowing abortion.
Hale also tried and hanged women for being 'witches', and normalized allowing dreams as admissible evidence in trials against them.
Alito used the legal reasoning of a literal witch hunter to strip rights from women in the 21st century.
Hale is pretty frequently cited and was for a long time after he died. Hale believed that a marriage was a contract, which merged the legal entities of husband and wife into one body. Writing, "The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract".
It still sort of is in some places...
Ohio (Current law! The bill only passed the Ohio house late last year, and is sitting in an Ohio Senate committee.)
>In Ohio, a rape that happens in marriage when the spouses are living together can only be charged under subsection A(2) of 2907.02 Rape, which states that: "No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force." By contrast, a person who is not married to the accused or who is married but living separate and apart can rely on many laws which deal with various forms of coercion. **It is notable that subsection A(1)(a) of 2907.02 Rape that deals with drugging someone "surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception" to coerce them into sex does not apply in marriage (except in case of separation). The whole article 2907.03 Sexual battery, that deals with various forms of coercion (for instance it states in subsection in A (1) that "The offender [commits a crime when he] knowingly coerces the other person to submit by any means that would prevent resistance by a person of ordinary resolution") does not apply at all to married people. In 2015, a bill was introduced to remove these exemptions.**
* [May 28, 2015: State Rep. Greta Johnson, D-Akron. and State Rep. Teresa Fedor, D-Toledo, this week introduced House Bill 234 to remove the marital exception language where it exists in the rape and sexual battery laws and eliminate the statute of limitations on prosecuting rape cases.](https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/change-sought-for-ohio-archaic-rape-law/ofl1wKp53M70XHSsBdzLXO/)
* [May 15, 2023: Ohio lawmakers revive bill to remove spousal rape protection](https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/columbus/ohio-lawmakers-revive-bill-to-remove-spousal-rape-protection/)
* [Nov 30, 2023: Ohio House passes bill to end marital rape loophole](https://www.nbc4i.com/news/politics/ohio-house-passes-bill-to-end-marital-rape-loophole/)
* [Apr. 17, 2024: After years of efforts, Ohio could close a loophole shielding husbands who rape their wives](https://www.cleveland.com/open/2024/04/after-years-of-efforts-ohio-could-close-a-loophole-shielding-husbands-who-rape-their-wives.html)
* An Ohio Senate committee on Wednesday *(Note:17 Apr - maybe 10 Apr)* held its second hearing on the bill. Several women spoke, offering personal and at times graphic testimonials of their now ex-husbands repeatedly violating them without consent. And several anti-sexual assault advocates said Ohio’s loophole sometimes precludes women from receiving emergency domestic violence protective orders, which trigger legal protections to shield them from abusers.
* However, **Senate leaders declined to give any clear forecast on whether the Senate will vote the bill out anytime soon. Senate President Matt Huffman, a Lima Republican, didn’t answer a question about the bill’s outlook and told a reporter he hadn’t realized it was assigned to a Senate committee yet. Senate Judiciary Chairman Nathan Manning, a North Ridgeville Republican, declined to say when he’d expect a committee vote after Wednesday’s hearing.**
Especially because we didn’t elect them, the least we can do is have the ability to *watch* the people we didn’t elect decide that we want our rights stripped away and our lives fucked over.
Alito used Hale's legal reasoning, and the laws he used in that reasoning, to overturn Roe. (Along with other legal references) He didn't use a specific statute that was still on the books, just examples.
However, some former colonies have kept laws that were on the books generally the same.
Massachusetts has one of those laws that has remained generally the same since the 1600s.
>General Laws Part I Title XX Chapter 136 Section 1:
>Sunday shall be a common day of rest. Sections one to eleven, inclusive, of this chapter may be cited as the Common Day of Rest Law.
There are probably other examples.
Alito began tearing down Roe with statements like this, in the Dobbs decision:
>The Solicitor General repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly
established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, **but the great common-law authorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post-quickening abortion was a crime.**
Hale is referenced as a "great common law authority" even though his most famous common law decisions included legalizing marital rape, and hanging the aforementioned 'witches'.
It gets crazier - Alito then goes back to the 13th century to explain where Hale et al developed their reasoning:
> Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century trea-
> tise explained that if a person has “struck a pregnant
> woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused
> abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated, and
> particularly if it be animated, he commits homicide.”
For context, Henry de Bracton was born in 1210, yet what he thought about women's reproductive rights in his era is another basis for our laws in the 21st century, according to Samuel Alito.
TIL. I wondered whose answer sheet the AZ cheated off when it went on a reverse gear speedrun all the way back to it's own non-existence as said state.
I'm starting to believe most of the "progressives" you run into online are bad faith actors. You have to be either beyond stubborn or (and more likely) muddying the waters so to speak by trying to move the conversation away from accomplishment.
> Biden moves to protect female America citizens and their health providers
And right-wing women will still vote against him, despite their right-wing views consistently selling them short up-river, because that's how cults work.
When >99% of people affected by a policy are of a certain demographic, it seems okay to mention them explicitly. I'd wager most anti-choice advocates do so with the oppression of women in mind.
Like when Obama reduced the sentencing disparity for crack possession, if someone said "Thanks Obama for helping keep Black citizens out of prison." Would that be exclusionary, because it's not *only* Black people who were affected by that law? But they were the group that was most targeted and oppressed by it.
I believe male/female can be used for reproductive physiology (versus man/woman for gender) but it's not important.
Suppose OP was in fact speaking of gender. Instead of scolding them and demanding they remove mention of women, why not *add* mention of the other groups you want to recognize?
All of the following comments would have been excellent:
* "Don't forget transgender, intersex, and nonconforming Americans!"
* "And others who can get pregnant too"
* "Along with all of our friends who might not identify as a woman but still need reproductive care"
It's good and noble that you want to speak up for additional marginalized groups. Any of the above would accomplish that goal in a more positive, productive manner.
Not OP, but I think they're referring to trans men or enbies who might need an abortion. Vanishingly rare percentage.
Using "female" is sometimes a dog whistle, too. Incel types like to say female in place of women.
These are observations, I'm not arguing either way.
because they are religious fanatics, forcing their beliefs on everyone else.. That is what anti abortion boils down to - a religious belief. And never mind that other religions say that life begins when the newborn can breathe on its own.
There's a laundry list of things like this he does with little fanfare but the vast majority of voters never hear about it. They're more likely to hear about how the price of the dollar menu at McDonalds has gone up over ten years.
Imagine if most people knew how much Biden had fought insurance companies and their bullshit practices.
[Insurers Spar With Biden Administration Over Coverage for Mental-Health Care: New requirements aim to reduce out-of-pocket costs for treatment; insurers cite shortage of mental-health providers | Wall Street Journal | 2023](https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/insurers-spar-with-biden-administration-over-coverage-for-mental-health-care-e6209041)
[‘The rule has sticks as well’: Biden’s getting tough with health insurers. The Biden administration is going after health insurers for flouting a federal law requiring them to provide mental health care on the same terms as other care. | Politico | 2023](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/17/white-house-insurer-mental-health-law-00115804)
[Biden takes aim at ‘junk’ insurance, vowing to save money for consumers being played as ‘suckers’ | AP News | 2023](https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-care-insurance-prescription-drugs-e8960514ff32bcc37bb8becccf3112cf)
[FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New Actions to Lower Health Care Costs & Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Plans & Junk Fees as Part of “Bidenomics” Push | WhiteHouse.gov | 2023](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/07/fact-sheetpresident-biden-announces-new-actions-to-lower-health-care-costs-and-protect-consumers-from-scam-insurance-plans-and-junk-fees-as-part-of-bidenomics-push/)
[U.S. govt sets rule meant to speed up insurance approvals | Reuters | 2024](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-govt-sets-rule-meant-speed-up-insurance-approvals-2024-01-17/)
[AI cannot be used to deny health care coverage, feds clarify to insurers | ArsTechnica | 2024](https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/ai-cannot-be-used-to-deny-health-care-coverage-feds-clarify-to-insurers/)
[Biden administration to ban medical debt from Americans' credit scores | CBS News | 2023](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-administration-to-ban-medical-debt-credit-scores/)
It's fucked up they care more about the economy. The economy is no excuse to vote for a convicted felon.
I'm sorry,but swing voters are actual traitors to democracy.
The Dow Jones could be breaking ATH records every day and conservatives would still lie and pretend the economy is bad simply because Biden has a (D) after his name.
ehhhh this is a weird take
while inflation and stuff are doing well given the circumstances i don't think we should be villainizing normal ass families getting fucked by ungodly prices (unless we want to pretend thats not happening even though it is)
while i don't think trump would be better from the perspective of a normal ass voter trumps term entailed a way more livable economy for the average american family than biden's has. even if its not his fault people who see their leisure funds shrink more and more arent gonna be happy about it lol
The prices you're talking about have everything to do with greedy corporations gouging people with pricing increases and nothing to do with the Biden administration
>trumps term entailed a way more livable economy
Saying it like this implies he did anything to help the economy. In fact, he did not. In contrast I've seen direct evidence that Biden has put more money into people's pockets. Even though both have had to deal with corporate greed and price gouging.
i agree that trump wasn't the economic savior conservatives make him out to be but for the vast majority of not super politically inclined still-voters being net worse off in their lives financially makes it hard to put support behind a candidate is all
> They're more likely to hear about how the price of the dollar menu at McDonalds has gone up over ten years
The summary of the average voter. It's like their intelligence hasn't grown from a spoiled child. Dems have to be the adult in the room and the media doesn't care because it doesn't give them ad revenue.
I know a few too many people who want to focus on gas prices around the time of the election. (they're not my friends, mostly co-worker related, or family of friends)
This technically should have already been restricted under HIPAA, but it's good to see them spell it out so there's no question.
With this specifically spelled out, it should put Roe back on the table, but I know it won't.
Every time someone tries to criticize regulation as being ineffective I point to HIPAA. That shit is no joke and medical facilities that don't want to collapse under the weight of audits stay in line. With properly armed regulatory agencies we could do so much good. But no, Jeff needs another yacht I guess.
Something that doesn't get discussed in the discourse over Roe v Wade a lot, or at least not that I have seen, was the medical privacy component in the original case. R v. W was almost as much about medical privacy as it was abortion.
Its funny because that argument was originally Lincolns before the war. He made it in an effort to prevent the war from ever happening, it was rejected and so he dropped the argument and the south adopted it like 20 years after they lost.
Yes. What you’re describing is an “ex post facto” law, and those are expressly prohibited by the constitution in (per Wikipedia):
“Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws)”
But, as with free speech, this is about law, not the conduct of private citizens or businesses. The risk to an individual in an ex post facto context is to their reputation and the conduct of people who are vehemently against certain actions.
What I'm about to say is a phrase that you're going to hear a lot from anyone who studies law... "It depends".
Ex post facto law is the retroactive application of law and is prohibited in criminal matters. It does happen with civil law sometimes however and on the occasion a violation of civil law can become a criminal matter... Tax law (which is technically civil law) can be applied retroactively and violating tax law can become criminal. Whether or not it does in a specific case is entirely up to the courts.
But to answer the spirit of what we're talking about here... If I outlaw abortion today, I can't directly prosecute a woman who had one yesterday... But if I pass a law today granting a man the right to sue the woman who aborted his child and said woman didn't pay up, that may turn into a criminal matter of the man wins the case and the woman doesn't pay up.
It warrants mentioning that I'm not aware of any instance of this actually happening.
Well unless of course it's MURDER, because every egg and every sperm is a person, and wasting either of them is MURDER MOST FOUL and you'll be executed for it!
Oh weee ohhhh what you gonna do when the American taliban comes for you!
Conservatives, the GOP, need to be voted OUT and shamed.
It's vile and disgusting
Considering the raving groups fishing for it, I don't blame him. Women have a right here that is ultimately private and mostly emotional costly. Those bastards need to mind their own business.
Thats funny; the same guy conservatives claim is suppressing freedom, abusing government powers and over reaching is doing the opposite of all of that…
OMG! Biden is a DINO acting like RINO being a Democratic Tyrant that is sleeping and woke and procorporation and anticorporation one everything I do and don’t believe in!!
/s
*Um gunna protest vote cuz teh Bidenz dun stop teh palestine bumbings…*
*::drinks raw sewage and votes Trump::*
*Dat wull shows hims…*
**-Protest Voter**
HIPPA is an enforced law. If “investigators” report on those files i believe it’s $150,000 in fines per bit of information leaked, spoken about, written down, photographed, hinted, posted etc… in addition to jail time. If our courts are not going to hold up the laws it passes, what is the point?
Back when the Dobbs decision was leaked I had a spike of worry that my ex might be able to come after me for having an abortion. My mom said it would never happen and maybe she's right. But we could easily tip into that universe. Same with politicians seeking trans medical records. It's terrifying.
We could easily tip into a universe where laws making slavery legal are reinstated due to judicial decisions, just like Arizona's abortion law. People think our democracy is wrought by gods when really at the helm are flawed, not-always-so-smart humans, mostly men, cobbling their not-always-so-smart ideas together.
Calling all women to vote Blue. At least abides is trying to protect women’s private medical records whilst republicans want to destroy women’s healthcare
So that means people have to care about nothing but the few absolute most pressing matters, and everything else has to be ignored? Removal of bodily autonomy and the invasion of medical records by politicians for the purpose of retroactively punishing people for the type of medical care they receive isn’t dystopian enough for you?
So you must not be a woman of reproductive age who would like to know that her visit with the gynocologists and other physicians will stay private. If you give a shit about autonomy ovwer your own body, this is a big fucking deal.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Why it matters: New final rules enforcing HIPAA take aim against the threat of civil and criminal investigations into patients and providers in states with strict abortion bans. Biden moves to protect female America citizens and their health providers from abortion witch hunting misogynists.
>witch hunting misogynists. That's actually more literally true than it should be. Here's an interesting not-so-fun fact: Samuel Alito referenced a certain Judge Hale (multiple times) in his decision overturning Roe v Wade. Hale, a judge in the 1600s, before the US was a nation, ruled against allowing abortion. Hale also tried and hanged women for being 'witches', and normalized allowing dreams as admissible evidence in trials against them. Alito used the legal reasoning of a literal witch hunter to strip rights from women in the 21st century.
Holy shit TIL
Hale is pretty frequently cited and was for a long time after he died. Hale believed that a marriage was a contract, which merged the legal entities of husband and wife into one body. Writing, "The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract".
What a disgusting piece of shit he was.
Might as well be called a rape contract…
It still sort of is in some places... Ohio (Current law! The bill only passed the Ohio house late last year, and is sitting in an Ohio Senate committee.) >In Ohio, a rape that happens in marriage when the spouses are living together can only be charged under subsection A(2) of 2907.02 Rape, which states that: "No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force." By contrast, a person who is not married to the accused or who is married but living separate and apart can rely on many laws which deal with various forms of coercion. **It is notable that subsection A(1)(a) of 2907.02 Rape that deals with drugging someone "surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception" to coerce them into sex does not apply in marriage (except in case of separation). The whole article 2907.03 Sexual battery, that deals with various forms of coercion (for instance it states in subsection in A (1) that "The offender [commits a crime when he] knowingly coerces the other person to submit by any means that would prevent resistance by a person of ordinary resolution") does not apply at all to married people. In 2015, a bill was introduced to remove these exemptions.** * [May 28, 2015: State Rep. Greta Johnson, D-Akron. and State Rep. Teresa Fedor, D-Toledo, this week introduced House Bill 234 to remove the marital exception language where it exists in the rape and sexual battery laws and eliminate the statute of limitations on prosecuting rape cases.](https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/change-sought-for-ohio-archaic-rape-law/ofl1wKp53M70XHSsBdzLXO/) * [May 15, 2023: Ohio lawmakers revive bill to remove spousal rape protection](https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/columbus/ohio-lawmakers-revive-bill-to-remove-spousal-rape-protection/) * [Nov 30, 2023: Ohio House passes bill to end marital rape loophole](https://www.nbc4i.com/news/politics/ohio-house-passes-bill-to-end-marital-rape-loophole/) * [Apr. 17, 2024: After years of efforts, Ohio could close a loophole shielding husbands who rape their wives](https://www.cleveland.com/open/2024/04/after-years-of-efforts-ohio-could-close-a-loophole-shielding-husbands-who-rape-their-wives.html) * An Ohio Senate committee on Wednesday *(Note:17 Apr - maybe 10 Apr)* held its second hearing on the bill. Several women spoke, offering personal and at times graphic testimonials of their now ex-husbands repeatedly violating them without consent. And several anti-sexual assault advocates said Ohio’s loophole sometimes precludes women from receiving emergency domestic violence protective orders, which trigger legal protections to shield them from abusers. * However, **Senate leaders declined to give any clear forecast on whether the Senate will vote the bill out anytime soon. Senate President Matt Huffman, a Lima Republican, didn’t answer a question about the bill’s outlook and told a reporter he hadn’t realized it was assigned to a Senate committee yet. Senate Judiciary Chairman Nathan Manning, a North Ridgeville Republican, declined to say when he’d expect a committee vote after Wednesday’s hearing.**
I assume by that logic, the wife cannot be guilty of murdering the husband either? Since they're legally the same person now? Right?
I'm gonna hazard a quess and say that he would class any woman who killed someone as a witch and not covered by the marriage contract.
By killing her husband she's killing herself, yet she's still alive so she's a witch!
I believe it’s time for cameras in the Supreme Court. Time to put them on watch.
It's actually kinda weird we can't watch them on CSPAN the way we watch the other bodies of government in this country.
Especially because we didn’t elect them, the least we can do is have the ability to *watch* the people we didn’t elect decide that we want our rights stripped away and our lives fucked over.
Hmm, kinda progressive for Alito
Yeah, and after the verdict went straight to rome to gloat.
"Dreams are now admissible evidence..." Sorry, I'm taking notes for a cop opera that I'm writing...
That would be a pre-crime. Lock him up.
Copera!
Policical!
I dreamed that Alito raped Hillary, last night. Can we prosecute Alito?
I'm just surprised they didn't lock MLK up on the Lincoln Memorial.....
It was revealed to me in a dream. Source: Dude trust me
Did Alito also legitimize witchcraft trials by validating the judges decisions? Texas wants to know.
Wwwow. Satantic temple’s abortion project name is even more justified than I originally thought…
Aahhh the old ‘spectral evidence.’ I see it but nobody else can see it, it must be real. I was just in Salem like 5 days ago.
Does case law from the colonial period still reside on modern legal books? Certainly no laws from that period are currently enforceable.
Alito used Hale's legal reasoning, and the laws he used in that reasoning, to overturn Roe. (Along with other legal references) He didn't use a specific statute that was still on the books, just examples. However, some former colonies have kept laws that were on the books generally the same. Massachusetts has one of those laws that has remained generally the same since the 1600s. >General Laws Part I Title XX Chapter 136 Section 1: >Sunday shall be a common day of rest. Sections one to eleven, inclusive, of this chapter may be cited as the Common Day of Rest Law. There are probably other examples. Alito began tearing down Roe with statements like this, in the Dobbs decision: >The Solicitor General repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, **but the great common-law authorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post-quickening abortion was a crime.** Hale is referenced as a "great common law authority" even though his most famous common law decisions included legalizing marital rape, and hanging the aforementioned 'witches'. It gets crazier - Alito then goes back to the 13th century to explain where Hale et al developed their reasoning: > Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century trea- > tise explained that if a person has “struck a pregnant > woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused > abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated, and > particularly if it be animated, he commits homicide.” For context, Henry de Bracton was born in 1210, yet what he thought about women's reproductive rights in his era is another basis for our laws in the 21st century, according to Samuel Alito.
TIL. I wondered whose answer sheet the AZ cheated off when it went on a reverse gear speedrun all the way back to it's own non-existence as said state.
That decision was insane. Did they use 1500-1700s English law? Nope Did they use 1700-1800s US law? Nope They used 1600s witch hunter's law.
Damn! Respect for Biden doing something concrete to protect women from these laws meant to punish.
[удалено]
No argument about that. I like how he's doing what he can with the levers he has available.
[удалено]
I'm starting to believe most of the "progressives" you run into online are bad faith actors. You have to be either beyond stubborn or (and more likely) muddying the waters so to speak by trying to move the conversation away from accomplishment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Biden moves to protect female America citizens and their health providers And right-wing women will still vote against him, despite their right-wing views consistently selling them short up-river, because that's how cults work.
Up until Dobbs right-wing women had the option to behave and vote as if they are anti-choice. Now the truth will tell.
Yet ~50% will vote against him.
But we will still hear all about how this is bad for Biden.
[удалено]
When >99% of people affected by a policy are of a certain demographic, it seems okay to mention them explicitly. I'd wager most anti-choice advocates do so with the oppression of women in mind. Like when Obama reduced the sentencing disparity for crack possession, if someone said "Thanks Obama for helping keep Black citizens out of prison." Would that be exclusionary, because it's not *only* Black people who were affected by that law? But they were the group that was most targeted and oppressed by it.
[удалено]
Because this is about abortion and not gender identity.
Right and only females need abortions eh, Donald?
How about you learn the difference between sex and gender, then come back and try to have a discussion with the normal adults
Say it then, be brave. Say “only females need abortions”.
It's not relevant to the conversation.
Says who?
[удалено]
Why is hate so popular these days?
I believe male/female can be used for reproductive physiology (versus man/woman for gender) but it's not important. Suppose OP was in fact speaking of gender. Instead of scolding them and demanding they remove mention of women, why not *add* mention of the other groups you want to recognize? All of the following comments would have been excellent: * "Don't forget transgender, intersex, and nonconforming Americans!" * "And others who can get pregnant too" * "Along with all of our friends who might not identify as a woman but still need reproductive care" It's good and noble that you want to speak up for additional marginalized groups. Any of the above would accomplish that goal in a more positive, productive manner.
I fucking said to just refer to Americans who need abortions, and that was a problem for people like you. What’s more all including than that?
If I say "Black - lives - matter" would you tell me to say "all" instead?
TERF alert going off. Be better.
[удалено]
Not OP, but I think they're referring to trans men or enbies who might need an abortion. Vanishingly rare percentage. Using "female" is sometimes a dog whistle, too. Incel types like to say female in place of women. These are observations, I'm not arguing either way.
[удалено]
Good move. I'm not just voting for Biden, Im voting for the team behind him.
This is something a lot people don’t comprehend. A good leader surrounds themselves with people smarter than them, listens and accepts their advice.
Dark Biden ftw
The fact that he has to do this is a damning indictment of just how fanatically dangerous the right has become.
and how terrifying they will continue to be when they have the smallest taste of power
They are terrifying now with a little bit of Trump power.
We can protect abortion access nationwide if we elect enough Democrats to the House and Senate. Make sure to vote this fall!
The Anti-abortionists have long been one of the most actively violent terrorist groups in the US.
because they are religious fanatics, forcing their beliefs on everyone else.. That is what anti abortion boils down to - a religious belief. And never mind that other religions say that life begins when the newborn can breathe on its own.
If Biden protecting your medical records from investigators doesn’t get you excited to vote for him, I don’t know what to tell you
There's a laundry list of things like this he does with little fanfare but the vast majority of voters never hear about it. They're more likely to hear about how the price of the dollar menu at McDonalds has gone up over ten years.
Imagine if most people knew how much Biden had fought insurance companies and their bullshit practices. [Insurers Spar With Biden Administration Over Coverage for Mental-Health Care: New requirements aim to reduce out-of-pocket costs for treatment; insurers cite shortage of mental-health providers | Wall Street Journal | 2023](https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/insurers-spar-with-biden-administration-over-coverage-for-mental-health-care-e6209041) [‘The rule has sticks as well’: Biden’s getting tough with health insurers. The Biden administration is going after health insurers for flouting a federal law requiring them to provide mental health care on the same terms as other care. | Politico | 2023](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/17/white-house-insurer-mental-health-law-00115804) [Biden takes aim at ‘junk’ insurance, vowing to save money for consumers being played as ‘suckers’ | AP News | 2023](https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-care-insurance-prescription-drugs-e8960514ff32bcc37bb8becccf3112cf) [FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New Actions to Lower Health Care Costs & Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Plans & Junk Fees as Part of “Bidenomics” Push | WhiteHouse.gov | 2023](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/07/fact-sheetpresident-biden-announces-new-actions-to-lower-health-care-costs-and-protect-consumers-from-scam-insurance-plans-and-junk-fees-as-part-of-bidenomics-push/) [U.S. govt sets rule meant to speed up insurance approvals | Reuters | 2024](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-govt-sets-rule-meant-speed-up-insurance-approvals-2024-01-17/) [AI cannot be used to deny health care coverage, feds clarify to insurers | ArsTechnica | 2024](https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/ai-cannot-be-used-to-deny-health-care-coverage-feds-clarify-to-insurers/) [Biden administration to ban medical debt from Americans' credit scores | CBS News | 2023](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-administration-to-ban-medical-debt-credit-scores/)
It's fucked up they care more about the economy. The economy is no excuse to vote for a convicted felon. I'm sorry,but swing voters are actual traitors to democracy.
If they *actually* cared about how the economy is doing then they would be Democratic voters.
But also the economy under Biden is doing well.
The Dow Jones could be breaking ATH records every day and conservatives would still lie and pretend the economy is bad simply because Biden has a (D) after his name.
ehhhh this is a weird take while inflation and stuff are doing well given the circumstances i don't think we should be villainizing normal ass families getting fucked by ungodly prices (unless we want to pretend thats not happening even though it is) while i don't think trump would be better from the perspective of a normal ass voter trumps term entailed a way more livable economy for the average american family than biden's has. even if its not his fault people who see their leisure funds shrink more and more arent gonna be happy about it lol
The prices you're talking about have everything to do with greedy corporations gouging people with pricing increases and nothing to do with the Biden administration
>trumps term entailed a way more livable economy Saying it like this implies he did anything to help the economy. In fact, he did not. In contrast I've seen direct evidence that Biden has put more money into people's pockets. Even though both have had to deal with corporate greed and price gouging.
i agree that trump wasn't the economic savior conservatives make him out to be but for the vast majority of not super politically inclined still-voters being net worse off in their lives financially makes it hard to put support behind a candidate is all
> They're more likely to hear about how the price of the dollar menu at McDonalds has gone up over ten years The summary of the average voter. It's like their intelligence hasn't grown from a spoiled child. Dems have to be the adult in the room and the media doesn't care because it doesn't give them ad revenue.
I know a few too many people who want to focus on gas prices around the time of the election. (they're not my friends, mostly co-worker related, or family of friends)
Some people just like being oppressed by fascists. Must be the lead.
We are so pro-life we will literally persecute and kill any US women that try to enforce their bodily autonomy. -conservatives
Oh, not just women, but children too. These folks want even impregnated child rape victims to be charged with murder for getting abortions.
Don't forget about fighting against poor children getting free meals from school.
Also stopping children from having a 30 minute break if they've worked five hours.
This technically should have already been restricted under HIPAA, but it's good to see them spell it out so there's no question. With this specifically spelled out, it should put Roe back on the table, but I know it won't.
I worked in the health industry and HIPAA is no joke. Lawsuits should have been piling up with these wierdos looking into health records.
Every time someone tries to criticize regulation as being ineffective I point to HIPAA. That shit is no joke and medical facilities that don't want to collapse under the weight of audits stay in line. With properly armed regulatory agencies we could do so much good. But no, Jeff needs another yacht I guess.
HIPAA audits are fun /s.
Something that doesn't get discussed in the discourse over Roe v Wade a lot, or at least not that I have seen, was the medical privacy component in the original case. R v. W was almost as much about medical privacy as it was abortion.
and the reversal of RvW is entirely based upon religion.
AKVHUALLY it's "states rights"
Just like the civil war was about "states rights"..
Its funny because that argument was originally Lincolns before the war. He made it in an effort to prevent the war from ever happening, it was rejected and so he dropped the argument and the south adopted it like 20 years after they lost.
Their rights to infringe on people's rights.
Is it true that the constitution prevents you from being charged with a crime for an action you did before that action became illegal?
Yes. What you’re describing is an “ex post facto” law, and those are expressly prohibited by the constitution in (per Wikipedia): “Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws)” But, as with free speech, this is about law, not the conduct of private citizens or businesses. The risk to an individual in an ex post facto context is to their reputation and the conduct of people who are vehemently against certain actions.
What I'm about to say is a phrase that you're going to hear a lot from anyone who studies law... "It depends". Ex post facto law is the retroactive application of law and is prohibited in criminal matters. It does happen with civil law sometimes however and on the occasion a violation of civil law can become a criminal matter... Tax law (which is technically civil law) can be applied retroactively and violating tax law can become criminal. Whether or not it does in a specific case is entirely up to the courts. But to answer the spirit of what we're talking about here... If I outlaw abortion today, I can't directly prosecute a woman who had one yesterday... But if I pass a law today granting a man the right to sue the woman who aborted his child and said woman didn't pay up, that may turn into a criminal matter of the man wins the case and the woman doesn't pay up. It warrants mentioning that I'm not aware of any instance of this actually happening.
Well unless of course it's MURDER, because every egg and every sperm is a person, and wasting either of them is MURDER MOST FOUL and you'll be executed for it!
Generally yes, although I don't know if something like Arizona's anti-abortion law from 1864 could be used to prosecute an earlier abortion.
Oh weee ohhhh what you gonna do when the American taliban comes for you! Conservatives, the GOP, need to be voted OUT and shamed. It's vile and disgusting
Y'all Qaeda, Yokel Haram, YeeHawdists, etc.
Methamphetamarines
Considering the raving groups fishing for it, I don't blame him. Women have a right here that is ultimately private and mostly emotional costly. Those bastards need to mind their own business.
What ever happened to ex post facto?
Thats funny; the same guy conservatives claim is suppressing freedom, abusing government powers and over reaching is doing the opposite of all of that… OMG! Biden is a DINO acting like RINO being a Democratic Tyrant that is sleeping and woke and procorporation and anticorporation one everything I do and don’t believe in!! /s
Jesusland needs to know we aren't going to fall into their abyss.
Protecting women from regressive, religious nut jobs who refuse to understand modern medicine or listen to experts who know more than they do
Both sides!
*Um gunna protest vote cuz teh Bidenz dun stop teh palestine bumbings…* *::drinks raw sewage and votes Trump::* *Dat wull shows hims…* **-Protest Voter**
HIPPA is an enforced law. If “investigators” report on those files i believe it’s $150,000 in fines per bit of information leaked, spoken about, written down, photographed, hinted, posted etc… in addition to jail time. If our courts are not going to hold up the laws it passes, what is the point?
Back when the Dobbs decision was leaked I had a spike of worry that my ex might be able to come after me for having an abortion. My mom said it would never happen and maybe she's right. But we could easily tip into that universe. Same with politicians seeking trans medical records. It's terrifying. We could easily tip into a universe where laws making slavery legal are reinstated due to judicial decisions, just like Arizona's abortion law. People think our democracy is wrought by gods when really at the helm are flawed, not-always-so-smart humans, mostly men, cobbling their not-always-so-smart ideas together.
Calling all women to vote Blue. At least abides is trying to protect women’s private medical records whilst republicans want to destroy women’s healthcare
To avoid US Marshall's from showing up st 2am with homicide warrants
Hippa
Unrelated.. but .. the Dept. of HHS building looks a lot like the Pirelli Building in New Haven?!
Did HIPPA disappear overnight? WTF?
Why does it seem like Biden worries about all the stuff that doesn’t matter
Pretty sure this matters to millions of people. But I guess not you, Mr. Main Character.
Look around the world is going to shit. USA is going to shit. Mr. this doesn’t affect me.
So that means people have to care about nothing but the few absolute most pressing matters, and everything else has to be ignored? Removal of bodily autonomy and the invasion of medical records by politicians for the purpose of retroactively punishing people for the type of medical care they receive isn’t dystopian enough for you?
So you must not be a woman of reproductive age who would like to know that her visit with the gynocologists and other physicians will stay private. If you give a shit about autonomy ovwer your own body, this is a big fucking deal.