
That gives me an idea
Is there any data on circumcisions ?
Names, address, location of nearest rail-head ideally.
It will really help with planning the concentration of facilities
The US Supreme Court's decision a year ago to overturn Roe v Wade has shone a light on the amount of personal, sensitive data that tech companies collect every day – and how that information can be used for nefarious purposes. Shortly after the decision, which ended federal protections of abortion rights, it came to light that …
Exactly. For Christian nationalists and authoritarians, "free" has a different meaning that what the rest of us believe in. So, for them, things are going swimmingly.
It's not too late to correct the trajectory but it's up to the rest of us to have the willpower to actually get [their] fat bums off their couches and, at the least, move themselves to the polling booths at the appropriate times.
It would certainly go a long way to helping: in most American elections, around 50% of registered Democrats / liberals / moderates / progressives...don't even bother to vote.
So of COURSE the system will stay status quo, tilted towards a wealthy electorate that has pretty much brainwashed a portion of the population to vote against its own interests every time they simply speak the word "socialism!", because they've also managed to get that very same population to often stay home during the elections.
:sigh:
You can't fix stupid.
"It would certainly go a long way to helping: in most American elections, around 50% of registered Democrats / liberals / moderates / progressives...don't even bother to vote.
Not everywhere. In some places well over 100% of citizens of legal voting age cast a ballot.
Yes, people are. This is because a lot of these Supreme Court arguments are shameless justifications for whatever people want to happen anyway. For instance, since you are bringing up recreational drugs, the fact that growing your own marijuana was ruled as something the Federal government may forbid under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution, arguing that people who grow their own marijuana have an influence on the illegal interstate commerce of marijuana because they stop participating in it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
You may argue that two wrongs don't make a right, but one needs to be wilfully blind to ignore the political reasons for the reversal of Roe v Wade.
You have to be wilfully blind to think that the original decision which legalised abortion wasn't overtly political.
The current situation is that the states may choose to allow or ban abortions based on democratic means rather than through the quasi-religious re-interpretation of ~250 year old document by the high priests that happen to be currently appointed.
Americas obsession with their constitution is bizarre. That anybody could pretend that framers were thinking "and abortion" when they wrote "privacy" is insane.
I'm pro-abortion. I am however anti-pro-abortion-campaigners and their dishonesty. At least the "don't murder babies" people have a moral and ethical argument on their side - whether or not you believe it is valid.
What is happening here is the lefts usual approach to the law. Laws should be democratically determined unless the vote is going to go against us.
Privacy is relevant, because up to a certain point, a woman’s pregnancy is private information, known to her alone. Also subject to privacy is any patient’s interaction with their medical carers. This is the basis under which Roe v. Wade was won.
Making abortion a criminal offence would mean that, in order to prosecute, there must be a report of the “crime” occurring and evidence of this. In the case of early-term abortions, the smallest number of people who would typically know that the act has occurred is two: the woman, and her physician. The woman would not disclose the information, and the physician is bound by doctor-patient confidentiality. So, the matter is private, and the record of the act having occurred is also private. A citizen’s right to privacy already prevents the state discovering if, for example, they had had treatment for severe mental illness, sexually-transmitted disease, alcohol or drug addiction, etc. (you cannot charge someone with use of illegal drugs by compelling their doctor to reveal that they were treated for heroin addiction, for example). Roe v. Wade admitted that the fact of an abortion is also protected, and thus the state cannot compel or induce records of abortions.
Consider also that the vast majority of abortions are early-term and pharmaceutically-induced, and are indistinguishable from a miscarriage. So to prosecute someone for having an abortion rather than victimising someone who has just lost a pregnancy, it would be necessary to discover proof of supply of the necessary tablets, or proof or having had the procedure clinically; and the right of privacy asserted by Roe v. Wade prevents a state from doing this. You cannot make something a crime unless you can prove it without violating the rights of the parties involved, and so abortion becomes un-prohibitable. Not “legal”, just “impossible to make illegal”, and so the States could only regulate it, not prohibit it.
But the overturning of Roe v. Wade has other implications for citizens’ rights, because Roe v. Wade is based on the assertion that the US Constitution actually confers a right to privacy; the judgement that overturned Roe v. Wade says that no, the US Constitution does not always grant citizens a right to privacy, and the States can basically decide what is and is not private. But don’t worry: I’m sure it’s only guilty people who will have their private medical information seized by overreaching government prosecutors...
> Making abortion a criminal offence would mean that, in order to prosecute, there must be a report of the “crime” occurring and evidence of this.
By that logic it should be legal to kill anybody who doesn't have friends or family, as long as you hide the body well enough. Who knows or who can find out is irrelevant. A woman could have an abortion by "accidentally" falling down the stairs. Not exactly a safe way of doing it but nobody would know. But that shouldn't make it inherently legal.
Otherwise "accidentally" pushing your nan down the stairs should be legal because there were no witnesses.
The right to medical privacy should protect the individual, but it shouldn't protect a doctor from breaking the law. You wouldn't give a doctor a free ride for handing out drugs without medical need, nor would you allow a doctor a free ride for aborting a baby at 8 months.
So how is it possible to justify extending the individuals privacy to cover the doctors actions if they are terminating a pregnancy as long as it is before an arbitrary date?
I am pro-abortion. If you want abortion, vote for it. Don't try to wash your hands of it by hoping that some legal trickery can get you what you want.
> You cannot make something a crime unless you can prove it without violating the rights of the parties involved
The party has been ( in the very reasonable view of some people ) murdered. That's quite a violation of their rights.
I am pro-abortion but I cannot abide the arguments made by the pro-abortion campaigners. I find anti-abortionists to be far more honest and straightforward in their beliefs.
The judgement was that the meaning of privacy cannot be stretched beyond breaking point to include (what many reasonable people would see as) secret murder.
The American's quasi-religious reverence for a ~250 year old imperfect document is bizarre.
"Right to privacy, therefore right to abortion" is just as silly as "right to militia, therefore right keep a bazooka under my bed".
If you want legalised abortion, vote for it. If you cannot achieve it through democratic means, then tough. That's democracy.
It's not perfect but "democracy except where people disagree with me" isn't a viable legal framework.
That murder analogy is claptrap, and I suspect you know it.
First, a murder has nothing to do with the privacy of medical information, which was the grounds for a US constitutional prohibition on banning abortion. Second, any right to privacy of the murderer is pretty obviously trumped by the pre-existing right to life of the person being murdered. (This right-to-life argument, incidentally, is the one with which anti-abortion campaigners have been most successful outside of the US: if you can secure a legal ruling that an embryo has equal rights to a born child or adult, then suddenly you can argue that early-term abortion is homicide. This is fine example of making an argument from a faulty premise, but that’s kind of par for the course from a lobby that has a large-crossover with young-earth creationism.)
As it happens, I live in a country with legalised abortion, and judging by your username, I suspect you do too, or at least did (few Americans would understand the reference in your username). And yes, I did vote for it, directly. But unlike Americans, I live in an actual democracy. And it’s one with an electoral system that hammers extremists, and while we have a written constitution, it is one that is routinely amended by public vote. Yes, that means we have put some dumb things in our basic law over the years, but we also get to emphatically remove dumb things from our basic law too.
I agree with you that the US places too much emphasis on its constitution, especially now that the practice of amending that constitution to respond to changing events appears to have died off. The last amendment was in 1971 - over half a century ago (and all it did was reduce the voting age to 18). In the 20th century, the US Constitution was amended 11 times (or 9 if you discard Prohibition and its repeal). What used to be a living document of basic law is at risk of being ossified into a snapshot of early-20th century beliefs.
But there is nothing in the US constitution that actually prohibits abortion - it’s just that the Constitution is one of the few legal instruments that the conservative Right are wary of interfering with. Many US states have legal abortion simply because they passed laws that allow it (this is the same as the UK). However, in many other states, religious conservatives, imposing the morality of their particular sect upon the entire population, retained or strengthened laws that banned the practice. In the US legal system, the only way to counter repressive laws at the State level is to show that they are incompatible with the Constitution. This used to work, but Roe v. Wade was both a victory and the start of a defeat for the progressive faction in the US. But Roe v. Wade didn’t assert the right to bodily autonomy explicitly, all it did was assert a very specific right, but one that was incompatible with any attempt to criminalise abortion. I agree that this is an arse-backwards way of doing things, but if you spend any time in the US (and outside of the cities), you’ll understand that this is a country that even today is deeply religious, and very culturally conservative, and we’re talking about 50 years before today’s more liberal outlook: after all, much more “liberal” countries in Europe, taking a direct human rights argument that women, as human beings, have the right to full bodily autonomy took longer to legalise abortion.
I don’t disagree for a moment that “privacy” is a weak hook to hang the right to abortion upon; but it was the only hook that could be used in 1971, given the absence of an explicit right to bodily autonomy in the US Constitution - the US Bill of Rights does not have that concept, partly due to it being written in 1791, and partly due to the existence of chattel slavery across the USA at this time. That need to use a roundabout way of asserting a human right is why the current mess exists. (The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified by the USA, but as a declaration, it has no legal force)
So that was the victory, but the beginning of defeat was that Roe v Wade spooked the Religious Right so badly that they formulated a long-term plan to load the US Supreme Court with the most right-wing pro-religious candidates they could find over the coming years: this way they could neutralise the parts of the Constitution that don’t agree with their ideology without having to open the Pandora’s Box of actually amending it, and it paid off last year, when a judgement came down to say that no, there’s no right to medical privacy, so no, there’s nothing to stop States passing laws that make abortion a crime.
Oddly, you seem to be labouring under the impression that the USA is a functioning, representative democracy. I would disagree, given how many barriers there are to ensuring that the choices of the electorate are reflected in their government. State-level gerrymandering (sorry “redistricting”), voter suppression (sorry, “anti-fraud measures”), even the Electoral College mechanism are all designed to prevent the actual voice of the electorate being heard. At least the Electoral College may have made sense in the days of pony post, but it has no purpose now; the other two are modern tactics to lock-in supermajority results, often from a minority voting base.
"I agree with you that the US places too much emphasis on its constitution, especially now that the practice of amending that constitution to respond to changing events appears to have died off. The last amendment was in 1971"
That's like saying that when people play Monopoly they put too much emphasis on the rule book. How the country operates and how the government is suppose to be organized are embodied in that document. Making changes through amendments is a very difficult process and was set up intentionally to be that way. When the original Constitution was drafted, they realized that it couldn't be perfect for all times and the first 10 amendments weren't afterthoughts, but concepts it was going to take more discussion to get just right so the Founding Fathers went with what they had and established a framework to keeping improving it. I'm reminded of a quote from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" where it's said that more that 3 people can't decide about lunch. Over 300 million people and growing are going to have an even harder time. There's also been plenty of overreach by government agencies that has created tension within so the requisite number of states required to get an amendment to the final vote is blockaded by yet more politics. Just like many things, most changes to the original design occur in the short term and become fewer and fewer as time goes on. It doesn't mean that the US Constitution is perfect, but that a whole new model is a more obvious path forward than patching the old. Not that I'm advocating for a new US Constitution as that process generally starts with a populist uprising and lots of dead people.
> First, a murder has nothing to do with the privacy of medical information
I don't see it this way, but it is extremely reasonable for somebody to see terminating a pregnancy as murdering an unborn human.
Unlike centrist ideologues, I try to see both sides. It's led me to the conclusion that abortion should be allowed ( to a certain number of weeks ) but the people who campaign in favour of abortions are worse than the people who campaign against them ( bombers, etc, aside ).
As it happens, the right of privacy does protect people from being charged with drugs offences simply because they are under treatment for the effects of that consumption: The cops can’t just call in to the local hospital emergency department and demand a list of everyone who’s been given naloxone that week.
"There is no victim to report you."
With drug abuse, there are plenty of victims starting with the user victimizing themselves. If you feel that all laws regarding vice are silly, you should save up and buy your own island. I'm wary of proposed laws that are to protect people from themselves, but since pot was made legal for recreational use where I live, you can't walk through the very small car park at the corner shop without getting a blast of pot smoke. Obviously, the driver is committing a crime, but how about the kids and other people in the car? How about my delicate sensibilities? I find the smell reminiscent of burning cow manure and it puts me off. Why should I have to put up with the smell when I'm sat out on my deck trying to enjoy a warm summer evening?
What you want doesn't matter - we're going to use the pro-abortion campaigners version of democracy which is to hope that their side manages to stuff the supreme court so that their will can be forced on everyone.
( Although obviously it's bad and terrible when the other side does it and allows the states to make up their own minds ).
"You have to be wilfully blind to think that the original decision which legalised abortion wasn't overtly political.
Americas obsession with their constitution is bizarre.
That anybody could pretend that framers were thinking "and abortion" when they wrote "privacy" is insane.
...
I'm sorry that you are so focused on the importance of your own beliefs that you can't even see the forest from the trees.
---------------------------------------------
I'm pro-abortion. I am however anti-pro-abortion-campaigners and their dishonesty. At least the "don't murder babies" people have a moral and ethical argument on their side - whether or not you believe it is valid.
...
Bullshaite and a ridiculous argument. If an individual believes the argument is invalid - because they DON'T believe that the end of a organism that isn't viably born yet is "murder" - then your entire argument falls apart. They DON'T have a "moral and ethical" argument because the greatest basis of their belief in their agenda is RELIGION.
Therefore it is incredibly dishonest of you to not understand the concept of "privacy" - keeping your religious-based beliefs to yourself - and "morality" - based solely on [their] interpretation of *their* religious texts that then then insist on trying to impress upon the rest of the [entire] population.
---------------------------------------------
What is happening here is the lefts usual approach to the law. Laws should be democratically determined unless the vote is going to go against us.
That's correct! The left is telling the right:
'If your religion has a problem with NOT believing that an unborn embryo is not a 'person' yet, then simply don't get an abortion BUT KEEP YOUR DAMN OPINION TO YOURSELF, as the First Amendment *promises* that you should.'
It is *constantly* amazing how often pro-religious individuals constantly state their own rights to Freedom of Religion...whilst they work their damnest to remove that very same choice from everyone else. There is no "approach" to reading that law, the First Amendment. It is damn well very clear and concise as written, and note it is the *first* amendment of purposes made, not even the second or third. First. The very first thing they wanted, needed, to say, to firmly establish. Keep your religious beliefs personal.
It is *absolutely* a privacy issue: the right to have your own say in your own beliefs of what life, pregnancy, religion, health care and your own body as it intersects those concerns. It's like the bullshaite argument against gay marriage: if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. These people have NO right to force their views, 100% based upon their own interpretations of their own personal religions, on other people.
You are, as leftists are want to do - misunderstanding my point.
If you reasonably believe that terminating the life of an unborn baby is murder ( personally I don't ), then people have a right to object - just as they would object to somebody going around killing babies that had been born. Your solution that people should keep their opinions to themselves when they disagree with you is both tedious and silly.
> "BUT KEEP YOUR DAMN OPINION TO YOURSELF,"
So if somebody goes around raping women or butchering children, you'll keep your damn opinion to yourself on the subject will you?
Why are you talking about gay marriage? I'm pro-gay-marriage just as I am pro-abortion. I'm not religious. I'm not even American. I just can't stand the disingenuousness of the American left's pro-abortion arguments.
> These people have NO right to force their views, 100% based upon their own interpretations of their own personal religion
So if somebody goes around murdering women and children, you'll keep your views to yourself. It's a private matter between the murderer and the dead bodies in his bathtub.
Bloody leftists.
Both Roe v Wade and the reversal of it came about because Democrats are too afraid of their left-wing extremists who promote abortion up to 24-26 weeks (basically right up to the point where the baby can survive, because at that point it is a baby, not a foetus), and Republicans are too afraid of their right-wing extremists who promote no abortion ever (even in cases of rape, incest, foetus abnormalities and danger to the mother). A vast, silent majority of Americans (around 60%+ I believe) are in favour of controlled abortion (more or less unconditional in first trimester ie 13 weeks, and in medical cases thereafter - similair to Europe though varies a bit depending on country).
The polarisation of left v right has left reasonable politicians unable to express reasonable views, because the reasonable middle in this case becomes BOTH a woman-enslaver AND a baby-murderer
The far left (its not just the extreme left) want no time limit. Several states are already there.
Green on the map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
California is almost there as a 2022 change makes the time limit sorta optional.
One thing to remember is all these companies virtue signalling that they will pay for your out of state abortion, travel etc. are not being kind to their workers. It is MUCH cheaper than paying maternity!
"Want to take a wager that IBM's HR dept hasn't run the numbers on it?"
And yet, they continue to get rid of the older workers, those unlikely to be getting pregnant? If maternity pay was a concern, they'd be hiring more older women and more men and avoid hiring women of "child bearing age". Clearly this a much more complicated subject than we thought and IBM HR and accounts people are still studying it? It all sounds more complicates than Disaster Areas accounts.
"One thing to remember is all these companies virtue signalling that they will pay for your out of state abortion, travel etc. are not being kind to their workers. It is MUCH cheaper than paying maternity!"
It's also much cheaper than the company sponsored insurance paying the bills for a high-risk pregnancy that has an outcome of a not-healthy child and will lose the employee due to the child needing full time specialist care at the end anyway. In many places, fathers get leave too so it's not just 'maternity' leave
Any forward thinking company will like having workers with children. It's much harder to jump jobs if it also means uprooting and moving a whole family. Student loans, home ownership, lots of family in the area they are close with.... any anchor that will keep somebody from leaving on their own is good for a company that doesn't want to pay the high cost of turnover.
To allow abortions up until the time a fetus could normally survive outside the womb? Some women with irregular periods don't realize they are pregnant until they are several months along, so deadlines of 13 weeks might not be enough - especially with all the hoops republican states had added over recent years with multiple visits being required and ridiculous standards on facilities being imposed forcing many to close so women in some states were having to travel long distances for each appointment.
Maybe 13 or better 15/16 weeks would be workable if ALL the stupid pointless restrictions about waiting periods, multiple visits, needing all kinds of certifications for incredibly unlikely cases that would be referred to a hospital anyway, etc. were tossed out.
And also all the punitive laws that make it risky for a doctor to provide care when an abortion after that period is necessary due to fetal abnormality, danger to the mother, or as part of a medical procedure required after an incomplete miscarriage. With the threat of a fine or jail time hanging over them if the hospital can't "prove" it was necessary, such care is effectively banned.
"How is it an "extreme" position... to allow abortions up until the time a fetus could normally survive outside the womb?"
According to me, it's an extreme position to allow abortions *after* the time a baby could normally survive outside the womb. Note that being able to survive outside the womb makes it, in my eyes at least, a baby and not a fetus. BUT because exactly how far along isn't always 100% known (it's counted from previous period), I would err a couple of weeks on the side of caution.
"Some women with irregular periods don't realize they are pregnant until they are several months along"
I've heard of irregular periods, but "several months" irregular?? Sorry, that doesn't cut it. If a woman hasn't had a period in 6-8 weeks and had sex (even protected, accidents happen) during that period, she needs to get a pregnancy test. If necessary set up a programme to get free and discreet pregnancy tests for anyone who asks.
"Maybe 13 or better 15/16 weeks would be workable if ALL the stupid pointless restrictions about waiting periods, multiple visits, needing all kinds of certifications for incredibly unlikely cases that would be referred to a hospital anyway, etc. were tossed out."
Absolutely!! Again, some reasonableness is needed. A visit followed by 1-week waiting period allows someone to really not take spur-of-the-moment decisions they might regret later. Multiple weeks, multiple visits, heaps of paperwork etc are just willfully obstructive.
"punitive laws that make it risky for a doctor to provide care..."
Should not have to be 'proven' that a mother is at risk of dying. If there is a reasonably high statistical chance based on medical case history that a mother could suffer severe illness / injury, it should be her call. These things should be able to be quantified eg X%+ chance of a permanent disability / long-term impairment / risk of death
I've heard of irregular periods, but "several months" irregular?? Sorry, that doesn't cut it. If a woman hasn't had a period in 6-8 weeks and had sex (even protected, accidents happen) during that period, she needs to get a pregnancy test. If necessary set up a programme to get free and discreet pregnancy tests for anyone who asks.
A random guy (it could only be a guy) suddenly thinks he's a qualified OB/GYN. LOL, before I went on the pill to stabilize my periods, six-MONTH gaps weren't out of the question. Why don't you ask some women, if you know any? Oh, and I wasn't miscarrying, just under high stress at college, work, and home. No time or energy for sex for a few years.
"A random guy (it could only be a guy) suddenly thinks he's a qualified OB/GYN"
Yes, I'm a guy, I confess!! Firstly, apologies, I was trying to be a bit tongue-in-cheek without considering the trauma of whoever actually goes through these cases.
"LOL, before I went on the pill to stabilize my periods, six-MONTH gaps weren't out of the question."
So in these cases, how did you know if it was a gap in the period or if you were pregnant?? If your answer is going to circle back to "No time or energy for sex for a few years.", then (a) Sorry you had to pass through such a tough time, hope it's better for you now, and (b) maybe you can actually read what I wrote which is: "If a woman hasn't had a period in 6-8 weeks **and had sex... during that period**, she needs to get a pregnancy test".
OK, so maybe she doesn't *need* to get a pregnancy test. My point is that if it turns out that a woman realises she's pregnant only very late in the pregnancy, 'not knowing before' isn't a good argument to allow late-stage abortions, because a combination of sex+no period should be a warning sign of possible pregnancy even for women who have very irregular periods.
"I've heard of irregular periods, but "several months" irregular??"
Yes. It's not as common, but some avid female athletes can stop menstruating altogether until they scale back the intensity of their workouts. There's a girl I know that was very irregular and the doctors told her she'd be unable to have kids. Surprise! He's just toddling around now. It took some time for her to realize she was preggers. It only took a decade of not worrying about it so taking no precautions for it to happen.
A visit followed by 1-week waiting period allows someone to really not take spur-of-the-moment decisions they might regret later
Why is it the job of politicians to "protect" women from a decision they might regret later? Should there be a waiting period before buying a house to insure you aren't making a decision you might regret later? How about loaning money to a friend, taking out a student loan, going rock climbing, or booking a trip to see the Titanic?
Women who seek an abortion aren't making a "spur of the moment decision!" They aren't taking a pregnancy test after they wake up and get sick, finding it positive, and making an appointment for later that morning to have an abortion! Most of them have already spent plenty of time considering their decision, but it isn't anyone's business how much time they feel they need to think about it.
Requiring two visits makes things much harder for those who have to travel long distances. Even in states where it is legal you might have to drive hours (and driving is your only option in many places) to an abortion provider. Why the heck should they have to do that just to set another appointment for a week later? All the "waiting period" laws require IN PERSON consultation meaning a separate trip. The goal is NOT to help the woman by giving her time in case she's making a rash decision, it is to make the whole process more difficult, more expensive, and more stressful to reduce the number of abortions by hassling women when they are already under a great deal of stress.
Female legislators who are fed up with fellow legislators who are old white men trying to regulate their bodies ought to introduce legislation to ban Viagra and similar medications. If god didn't want those old farts to be impotent they wouldn't be!
""If necessary set up a programme to get free and discreet pregnancy tests for anyone who asks."
Like paying cash at any pharmacy? That's that bit sorted anyway :-)"
And for the most part, those tests are highly accurate, but it's still not a bad idea to check with a doctor for a second opinion to make sure. How long does it take you to see a GP? Add a bunch of time to that to see a GYN.
"With the threat of a fine or jail time hanging over them if the hospital can't "prove" it was necessary, such care is effectively banned."
There is also the time involved and that judges/courts are not medically trained so won't have any clue as to how to evaluate the case. A need to abort might be immediate. Just to file a case in court and have it scheduled would be a dangerous amount of time in some cases.
Just 100 years ago the death of a mother and/or child was much more common. In modern times, those numbers are way down in the first world and it only takes a cursory review of the stats in rural Africa or South America to see how bad it could be.
My niece's birth was induced and her chances of survival were not good but my sister would have died if the pregnancy wasn't terminated and we would have lost both. In many respects, the procedure was much the same as an abortion although the hoped for outcome was different. It was months before my niece could be brought home and she's been, fortunately, healthy growing up.
A former business partner and his wife have a child with severe Downs Syndrome and he required open heart surgery shortly after being born. They knew this would be the case going in. Is this the best outcome? With modern health care, the boy will likely outlive his parents and then require full time care paid for and provided by the State.
> The polarisation of left v right
is a false narrative being pushed by the heavily ideological centre-left grouping that calls themselves "centrists". As is the argument against ideology, amusingly.
Their message being "don't vote for anybody who stands for anything, vote for us instead".
Only a fool who isn't paying attention could possibly believe politics in the US aren't more polarized than they were 20 years ago, or even five years ago. Where are all the moderate republicans? MAGA is mainstream now. The democrats still have a fairly broad spectrum in congress with a few that are perhaps closer to an old school republican than they are a democrat, but so did the republicans until Trump - congressional democrats could be all Bernie/AOC types in short order if the right leader came along to fool the stupid like Trump did on the other side.
Two reasons for this IMHO. One, more news sources so it is easy to confine yourself into an echo chamber and believe lies like Trump won the 2020 election. Two, gerrymandering on steroids thanks to computers helping draw the districts.
There's no solution for the first, but if sanity ever prevailed a law could be passed banning politicians from drawing districts and having a standard process for it (which could be a simple open source computer program so everyone can verify the districts being used are correct) You would still have districts that tilt pretty hard one way or another but there would be many more competitive districts where nominating a MAGA or AOC type would be a guaranteed loss, forcing the nomination and therefore election of more centrist candidates.
Why do people downvote without giving their opinion.
If you disagree, explain why. There's nothing wrong with ideology - all politics should be ideological.
If you don't have ideology, you are just blowing with the wind ( Boris Johnson springs to mind - perhaps he is the classical liberal that he claims, but he acts as a man with no ideology ).
Centrism is the ideology of, broadly, a large state, social liberalism and believers in but not trusters of the free market.
I don't agree with it but it isn't a bad thing. It's a perfectly reasonable view. However it is not a compromise and it isn't a moderate middle ground - it is an ideology.
" Google pledged to update its location history system so that visits to medical clinics and similarly sensitive places are automatically deleted."
So there is a trail of locations, then a gap within a standard distance from an abortion clinic, and then the trail picks up again some time later at the same standard distance from the clinic. Yes, that's perfectly private isn't it??
Google can't have it both ways, either they are collecting this intensely private data which can then be abused, or if they really want to protect their users, stop collecting it at all
They could delete the entire trip, back to wherever the target spent longer than a few hours - likely their home or workplace.
Planned Parenthood is also the biggest provider of maternity and gyno healthcare in the affected states (possibly the whole of the US), so many women visit fairly often anyway.
Of course, it's moot as they don't appear to be doing anything.
And take the Sim out of their phone so they can't be tracked by cell tower data, and turn off Bluetooth and wifi so stores near the clinic can't use foot traffic scanning and remove the battery in case Google still have some features enabled.
Also remember to wear your Guy Fawkes mask
You know, normal taking responsibility stuff.
"nd turn off Bluetooth and wifi so stores near the clinic can't use foot traffic scanning and remove the battery in case Google still have some features enabled."
It's a good idea to turn off BT, WiFi and data when not in use, but it's 2-3 more button presses. I keep mine off since I only have need of them every so often. A better tactic might be to just leave the phone at home. Turning off the unused/unneeded radios saves a bunch of battery. I understand that the phone company is tracking me, saving the data and selling my location for a pittance and will also provide it to law enforcement just for the asking in many cases. If I'm going to do something dodgy, I'll take the battery out of the phone, leave it at home or stick it in a shielded box. Not really something I have to think about as I'm leading a pretty boring life right now but the sunflower patch is looking pretty glorious for all of the attention I've been able to give it.
I have a de-googled phone now, but that's a bit of a uncommon thing.
Had this exact argument before about the need to hide a user’s home location from our GPS logs. Enforcing a (e.g.) 100 m radius around their home would require that we made the system learn where they resided: something we had no business reason to know, and the exact thing we were trying to avoid, and then there would be an obvious missing circle from any plot of their location data.
In the end, we used an opt-in algorithm: we had areas that we had a legitimate business reason to know they were, and which they had consented to, so we only recorded points within those regions. Sadly, that meant we were requesting GPS outside those areas (guess what information your phone OS asks for as soon as you set a geo-fence...), in order to decide if we were going to retain that information, but Apple’s “here’s where [this app] tracked you” map doesn’t know that, and we still got complaints from customers. But, contrary to the received wisdom within tech, most people are not idiots, and the majority of our customers were able to grasp the idea that you can’t know whether you should report a location without first knowing the location.
A perfect example of authoritarian police rule, using technology which was originally intended for something else, in a bad - VERY bad - way. They'll do this and worse. There's precedent. In The Netherlands, before WW2, the authorities had gathered data on race, for the purposes of ensuring that all races were treated equally. It was a very forward-thinking thing to do in the 1930s. Until of course Hitler & co took over. We all know what they used this data for.
I'm sure there's a Black Mirror episode about this sort of thing. It wasn't meant to be a template.
This is more a combo of big tech pushing what they can do before someone big pushes back and to a lesser extent average customer being very lax with their personal data.
The authorities are just taking advantage of what has already been collected.
We all need to be very wary of connected and cloud systems. Remember the connected sex toy that had a temperature sensor and reported all its use back to HQ?
I might be wrong here but I seem to remember reading about a concept where anyone born of a Jewish mother is considered Jewish (I can't recall if that also applies to father). In theory Jewish people at least historically were only 'supposed' to marry and have kids with other Jewish people but surely not always in practice especially last century or so. Therefore however small minority of Jewish blood anyone has, they are still considered Jewish. I guess that's consistent with most mixed-race Americans being considered 'black' even though they are genetically far more white than black.
In the UK it was more a case of a government that wasn't really into the whole 'black/brown people living along side decent voters' and was prepared to fudge the issue for 'others' that were likely to support them
A bit like being anti-immigrant but making sure you keep the support of Cubans in Florida
"being anti-immigrant but making sure you keep the support of Cubans in Florida"
Legal immigrants are a demographic with extremely high support of policies against illegal migration, and it's easy to see why. Imagine queuing for hours outside a venue for an event for which you also had to pay for extremely expensive tickets, only to find once you're inside that the bouncers have left, anyone can get in without a ticket and it's now getting overcrowded.
Will need to start suggesting to women they turn off their phone before leaving for their appointment, and park somewhere else and take a Uber/cab to the appointment if they have a relatively new car that can have its location tracked.
Pretty sad the lengths the crazies will go in their battle to control women's bodies. And scary that more and more of them are talking about how they want to limit or ban birth control next. They are abandoning even the pretense that it is about anything else.
It might stop if they also introduce testicle surveillance in the same states, under the principle of equal treatment before the law. After all, onanism is a terrible sin according to the bible, requiring harsh punishment, so equally harsh laws need to passed against it, and the tech companies can then monitor any usage of porn sites by the politicians and preachers who want religious body control imposed and shop them for punishment. Seems only fair.
Tech companies are going to have to split into two, one working in Republican states that demand access to data, and the other in Democrat states. Just as they would obey different national laws in India and France.
A lot of this could be solved by switching to distributed versions of online services, where data is held and processed on users' machines, moved securely between users directly, and only voluntarily shared with service providers.
Does the sperm-donor have any say in the proceedings. Under U.S law, for any progeny, he would have been financially responsible up to age eighteen.
“I know either way he will use it against me,” the pregnant woman said, according to text messages attached to the complaint. “If I told him before, which I’m not, he would use it as [a way to] try to stay with me. And after the fact, I know he will try to act like he has some right to the decision.” “Delete all conversations from today,” one of the women later told her. “You don’t want him looking through it.”
“I know either way he will use it against me,” the pregnant woman said, according to text messages attached to the complaint. “If I told him before, which I’m not, he would use it as [a way to] try to stay with me. And after the fact, I know he will try to act like he has some right to the decision.” “Delete all conversations from today,” one of the women later told her. “You don’t want him looking through it.”
Asking for deletion while Texting? Don't text. It's likely it's saved somewhere and if it exists, it can be subpoenaed. I'm no fan of texting to start with since I find it a big waste of time in my business. I can talk on the phone and do other things at the same time, but can't say the same of texting. I also find that if I need to ask more than one very simple question, I don't get an answer or I get an answer that doesn't fit.
People are finally starting to wake up to the insidiousness of ubiquitous data harvesting and the stupidity of the "I have nothing to hide" argument. You might not have anything to hide NOW, but you might have something in your past or in your future that you don't want world+dog to know about. We should never have allowed data capture to get to the place it is now in the first place. And those now most keenly aware of it are those suddenly criminalized for a bodily function they don't really have much choice or control over. Especially in the religious extremist hell-holes of the US.
California laws prohibit cops from seeking warrants for people at a Planned Parenthood clinic, "there's nothing stopping you from saying give me the gas station next to the Planned Parenthood."
This statement makes no sense. A warrant is issued upon probable cause and evidence by a judge for the apprehension of individuals or the a search of a specifically named place leading to the confiscation of the products of a crime/evidence. All the above statement seems to do is state that police can't ask for directions to a clinic but could ask for directions to a place next door. For a warrant to be valid, it has to state the person to be arrested or the place to be searched and things expected to be found. The gas station next to the clinic shouldn't be named as a place to search as it has no involvement and judge would know they'd get reviewed. A warrant for a person to be arrested is enforceable just about anywhere. I would expect that an operating theatre wouldn't be appropriate nor if somebody was sat in a church confessional. The former due to the problems it would cause and the latter for how that would look and be reported in the media.
I don't see how Texas can enact laws that they can enforce outside their borders. If a woman goes to another state for an abortion, where does that give Texas the jurisdiction? If somebody travels to Nevada to commit a murder, the case would be labeled "The State of Nevada vs. alleged murderer". Even if that person was a resident of Texas meeting all criteria for being considered a resident, since the crime occurred elsewhere, Texas doesn't have a say in the matter even if Nevada decides they don't have the evidence they need to get a conviction and declines to bring a case to court. Federal law that applies in every state and territory doesn't find abortion to be illegal. All Roe vs. Wade did was prohibit states from passing their own laws one way or the other. I think all of this is why Texas makes it a crime to assist a woman in getting an abortion since they can claim that the action took place in the state regardless of where the abortion was performed or the drugs were obtained. Just a bunch of lawyering to force their laws/views on people.
I find this just as curious as some US judges passing laws that apply in other countries. There are laws in the US that make it a crime for US citizens to violate the laws of another country when they are visiting. There are US laws that make some of the most heinous crimes a prosecutable offense for US 'people' (includes Residents, citizens and some others) even if the deed is not considered a crime where it occurred but it's only for things that rise to the level of Crimes against Humanity. Most of that has to do with children. A US citizen traveling to a country where the age of consent is very low, to have 'relations' with kids would be a crime prosecutable in the US even if it wasn't a crime in that other country. A person making use of the services available at a brothel where such services are legal (and likely regulated), wouldn't rise to the same level even if the US state where they normally live has a prohibition against negotiated affection. Even in the case of murder, people are usually extradited to where the crime took place to be tried and sentenced.