FTC urged to protect data privacy of women visiting abortion clinics Democrat senators have urged America's Federal Trade Commission to do something to protect the privacy of women after it emerged details of visits to abortion clinics were being sold by data brokers. Women's healthcare is an especially thorny issue right now after the Supreme Court voted in a leaked draft majority opinion to …
You then filled it with people who would sell their children's kidneys and invest in Peruvian zinc. The rest think that's the american way, and trying to stop it is communism.
There'll be plenty of room up against the wall for data brokers and puritans alike when the revolution comes.
To be fair to the Puritans, the link you've provided clearly says its satire.
However, the particular group of Puritans who helped found America did leave the Netherlands because they were worried the Dutch peoples' live and let live attitude was rubbing off on their children, and they didn't like that whole religious toleration thing.
Because we all know that a large portion of male politicians have affairs, and occasionally an affair will lead to an unintended pregnancy. So no doubt there are dozens if not hundreds of state legislators who scream from the rooftops how against abortion they are, who have have helped their mistress get an abortion at some point during their career.
So if someone got their hands on all this data, I imagine the glee from the anti abortion side hoping to tar and feather people in public will be met with plenty of discomfort amongst their ranks.
Democrats had a law to codify Roe vs Wade at federal level. Kyrsten Sinema worked with Republicans to filabuster that law. To vote between something you need a choice, and Kyrsten's backstabbing means you don't. She was voted in as a Democrat, some disussions happened between her and Republicans and now she votes with them on almost everything while never explaining her choices.
They won't vote Democrat as a result of Kyrsten Sinema.
For me, the biggest one was where she voted against a voting rights law, that came in the wake of the Republican Supreme Court striking down voter protections. Republicans States then introduced voter restriction, Gerrymandering and even "vote watchers" became legal again in Texas, a return of the armed gunmen intimidating black voters in swing districts. No more bussing people to polling stations that have no public transport, now a crime in many Republican states. No more 24 hour polling stations, as needed by shift workers. A return to 10 minute lines for Republican districts and 8 hour lines in Democrat ones.
So, Republicans take the Senate officially in 2022, Sinema will likely change officially to be a Republican at that point.
Supreme Court judges, and State judges will be blocked again. Positions will be held open for years.
People like Mastriano, Jan 6th GOP plotter and Pennsylvania Governor candidate. He's openly said, if he gets Governor position, then he will only allow Republican elector lists to be sent to the Senate, regardless of the vote. Nobody bats an eyelid, its expected of Republicans now.
Clarence Thomas's wife has had more revelations over Jan 6th, this time she tried to throw out the vote in Arizona. He's pretending to be a victim and not a co-conspirator. So expect the Supreme court to simply rubber stamp any coup.
Really the only thing standing between Republicans and a successful coup, is "total landscaping Trump". They had all the elements of a successful coup back in December, he just couldn't deliver the size of mob they needed to give Pence cover for the coup.
If he'd gotten his coup, they had their 'special lawyer' lined up in the defence department, to legalize use of the military to kill protestors to suppress protests. Thomas would no doubt help rationalize that murder to enforce a coup as being 'pro-democracy'.
Minor pedant: the bill was voted down in the Senate, and the only dissenting Democrat was Joe Manchin. So even her hypocrisy only goes so far.
But you're right that Sinema and Manchin both need to be removed in the primaries, because they're both DINOSAURs - Democrat In Name Only, Screwing Up Abortion Rights.
"Sinema defends filibuster in statement criticizing decision to overturn Roe v Wade"
https://thehill.com/news/senate/3475519-sinema-defends-filibuster-in-statement-criticizing-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/
Mitch McConnell said he would filibuster the bill to block it, and she said she would support that filibuster knowing it would defeat the bill. You want to give her (minor pedant) credit for voting *for* a bill she already voted to filibuster to death with Mitch, but I give her extra d-merits for being a lying sack of shit playing divisive games.
Manchin is easy enough to understand. He owns mining interests, which means he has to pretend to be Democrat while always voting to increase his mining wealth. When you take away his enabler, he votes Democrat. Sinema here is the enabler here. Scrape the lying Sinema crap off your shoes and Manchin will suddenly pretend to be a Democrat again.
For example, if Manchin was the only obstacle, build-back-better could have been passed, by adding "clean coal" provisions. But add Sinema flat out refusal, and it was dead in the water. Inflation is high, and BBB was fiscal positive, they could really use that growth right now, but no the Kyrsten problem hits them again.
Even if you could get Sinema to vote Democrat (the agenda she was elected on), its just too late.
In Democrat voters head, Democrats cannot deliver on their promises, and they cannot do that because Kyrsten Sinema is a lying POS.
Democrats voters won't vote Democrat in the mid-terms.
And when they don't, thank Kyrsten Sinema.
Democrats have only 50 members in a 100 member Senate. They need 60 to overcome the filibuster to make it law.
They HAD that size of majority after Obama was elected in 2008, and have had even bigger majorities at times since Roe was decided. They could have passed a federal law making abortion legal, which would have had the added benefit of taking the wind out of the sails of the anti-abortion effort to corrupt the court with unqualified politically minded people sent there with a task rather than picking the best qualified jurists as had been done in the past.
So it is the democrats fault as much as the republicans that we are in this situation today where abortion is about to be illegal in about half the states, and middle class and rich women will have easy access to abortion and poor women less able to travel will be forced to bear unwanted children (which the republicans will not lift a finger to help them raise)
It is weird tough that the party that is now a proponent of the "great replacement theory" and believes democrats want immigrants to come and replace the white electorate should want to do something that will prevent a much greater proportion of non-white women from having abortions versus white women. Maybe they believe the babies will grow up so grateful they will vote republican?
The next time republicans have the president, house and senate there will be an extreme amount of pressure from the far right for them to toss the filibuster and ban abortions nationwide.
Unfortunately a Federal law would not make any difference, as it's the Supreme Court voting to overturn it - as the name suggests, they are the senior body and can overturn Federal law.
interesting to note that very few Republican politicians seem to be talking about the overturn of Roe - you'd think they would be celebrating it - except polling has consistently shown at least 70% of voters from all parties oppose overturning it, so they are keeping quiet for fear of getting spanked in the mid-terms.
Glad I live far, far away, in a country that (so far) has a much less partisan and dishonest political system...
You totally misunderstand how things work in the US I guess. The court decided in Roe that laws that made abortion illegal could not be enforced.
The expected reversal of that decision would allow laws declaring abortion illegal to stand. It would not prevent the enforcement of laws that make abortion legal, thus blocking states from making it illegal.
This post has been deleted by its author
This is where a parliamentary system massively outperforms the American system. In a time where people are really upset, then can vote for secondary parties, which splits the votes so that no major party has a majority and compromises need to be made on everything. In the American system you end up with a very close position where a single member of the ruling party can derail everything, but the agendas are still set unilaterally. This, the electoral college and the overpowered executive branch (which wasn't even in the original design) are the three major things that make the American system much less democratic than most democratic systems.
A lot of the time, which I watch coverage of the swamp that is US politics I heard a lot of orientalist arguments. Like "It's not constitutional". These are patently ridiculous because your founding fathers did not think the laws should be set in stone. They made more amendments than anyone! They realized that over time, things change and right now the American people suffer because of the institutionalized old ideas.
It's not my country, so it's not really my business. But I look at this slow-motion train-wreck and I really feel for the people caught up in it, especially those the poor people working thankless jobs for nothing while they're being told they live in the best country in the world.
The Founders viewed the Constitution as changeable, but also made it hard to do, otherwise it would be changed every 5 minutes. It takes 2/3 of Congress approving a change just to make it possible to start the ball rolling, then 3/4 of the states must approve the change. What's more, any state that approved a change can later retract that approval at any time before ratification. The President has no say mainly because 2/3 of both Congressional houses is already more than it takes to override a Presidential veto. The states are fairly evenly split on partisanship, so actually changing the Constitution won't happen unless there is a true benefit to everyone. It's far easier to get a law passed than to change the Constitution, and that's how it should be.
and right there we have the problem:
...can purchase location data for $160 showing folks visiting Planned Parenthood facilities across the country...
legally aquiring strangers location data?
Seriously?
What could possibly ever go wrong?
"People living in those states would, in theory, have to travel to another state where abortion is legal to carry out the procedure lawfully, although laws are also planned to ban that.
Which is why keeping a lid on data on people's whereabouts, especially their journeys to abortion clinics, is more important than ever."
I can see potential arguments for not wanting to have this data sold but to help people break the law? Lets try this argument with guns where neighbouring states wont sell to a californian (if I remember it right).
@Jedit “Simply crossing state lines while pregnant for malicious intent would qualify as felony kidnapping.”
I maybe wrong as I am from the UK, but doesn’t crossing state lines make kidnapping federal? Until you cross state lines it is not kidnaping, but crossing state lines makes it federal and federally it is not kidnapping.
Also, who would it apply to only residents of the state? What about women who work in the state or are temporarily in the state and return to their home state for an abortion. Is the foetus considered to have the rights of a person if it is not conceived in that state?
The lawyers could have a field day and huge payday arguing that one.
Yes, it says it's illegal to force a woman to travel for the purpose of forcing her to be a hooker. You seriously have a problem with that? If a woman want to cross state lines to be a hooker that's her business, but if you make her, that's where the Mann act comes in.
Doesn't mean the law wasn't ever abused though, seeing as it's been used in the past on people who just crossed state lines because they wanted to screw somewhere new.
There's a very good reason that all clinical information is treated as highly confidential, and protected on pain of, well, real pain to any company that breaches it over here in the UK and Europe.
This is a case of Law following established Clinical Ethics. Which is the right way to do it.
I had a few chances of emigrating to the US, and a good part of the reason I didn't was its almost asinine insistence that Law trumps Ethics, Science, and a whole bunch of other things that it should really pay attention to (making it extremely deep into the territory of "A system of legalities, not a system for Justice").
Not protecting people's data about clinical matters is entirely settled as to Ethics. It is definitively unethical to release that data. Words like "corrupt", "stupid" and so on may be debated philosophically until the cows come home (and to no real point), but anyone releasing this information is definitively ethically bankrupt, which is a sad indictment.
Oh, I don't know. Because maybe, some men wouldn't just throw a few hundred $s at their girlfriend and tell them to go sort it out? And instead make a difficult decision/trip together? Who knows.
Maybe these States will try and use the White Slavery (Mann Act) to deal with these people anyway.
In the US? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AD INFINITUM.
It will never pass because it will provide a path to protect everyone's data, and they can't have that.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
