Right to Contraception Act.

[Twilight Hue]

Smoking bans have been thr result of state legislatures and even municipal bodies. Roe v Wade getting lost was an act of the Supreme Court. These are two totally different acts and not at all the same legak mrchanism. One we can even influence, the other we cannot.

So is the infrastructure bill and green new deal. State or federal , it's the same nanny state mechanism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some think that abortion will be a key to the upcoming election. It won't be. Abortion is way down the list of the top issue for voters. Voters are far more concerned about bread and butter issues.

Gallup poll on top voter issues

But Democrats and Leftists (sorry for the redundancy) know they can't succeed talking about bread and butter issues. So they prefer to change the subject. Leftists are self delusional.

When did your crowd suddenly start liking and relying on polls?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So is the infrastructure bill and green new deal. State or federal , it's the same nanny state mechanism.

No, it's not. State, federal and the Supreme court do not utilize the same legal mechanisms. Federally, the Judicial branch is separate and functions differently from the Legislative branch which is separate from and functions differently from the Executive Branch.

 

[fantome profane]

So is the infrastructure bill and green new deal. State or federal , it's the same nanny state mechanism.

So it was a good thing that Trump never passed any infrastructure measures. And the Republican in the house who can't pass anything are the perfect government for you.

 

[Shaul]

It is not really that they shouldn't, but since we have set up society so that many can't really afford them, the government assuring their availability to all is cost effective.

If someone can't afford contraceptives they have other alternatives than for the government to pay for them.

 

[Shaul]

The bill was to protect against the future actions of this current SCOTUS, not just grandstanding.

That's malarkey. The proponents of this Bill knew it was partisan and would never pass the House. It was grandstanding.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No. You just flat out ignore things.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

Well, it is pretty easy to ignore what is not presented.

No. You just flat out ignore things.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

Have you looked at what all the things measured as "freedoms" that are being rated? Things like tobacco (you know, the freedom to poison others around you), environmental protection rules (you know, you should be free to end life on this planet if you can make a buck!). How about the freedom not to be able to afford health insurance, and so not have any -- there's a real winner!

Total rubbish.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, it is pretty easy to ignore what is not presented.

Have you looked at what all the things measured as "freedoms" that are being rated? Things like tobacco (you know, the freedom to poison others around you), environmental protection rules (you know, you should be free to end life on this planet if you can make a buck!). How about the freedom not to be able to afford health insurance, and so not have any -- there's a real winner!

Total rubbish.

Only for you and select others it is rubbish.

Not applicable to the rest however.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or that, you know, we can actually have enough people to replace those who are dying. Because we don't. The birth rate has plummeted below replacement level throughout the developed world and this is one of the most important issues facing us.

I say that's actually a good thing.
Earth already has too many people,
as demonstrated by problems, eg,
AGW, higher cost, loss of species.

You can't have a functioning society with a huge and growing population of old people and a shrinking population of young working people to support them.

I agree.
But that's not what I advocate.

The economy will fall apart over that alone, and we already have plenty of other reasons why it's falling apart and will get worse.

I recall a strong economy back when
we had half the population. More
people only makes the economy
bigger....with more people competing
for limited resources & space.
Hence rising costs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Only for you and select others it is rubbish.

Not applicable to the rest however.

You mean most of the rest of humanity want the freedom to end life on earth, to strangle the oceans with their plastic rubbish because it's "convenient" for them? Then why don't they exercise their freedom to die now, rather than wait -- and let the rest of us have the freedom to breath and live on the planet? What's the benefit to them of robbing the rest of us of our freedom to live unpolluted, and unpoisened?

 

[fantome profane]

The proponents of this Bill knew it was partisan

But why is it partisan? Can you explain that to me?

This bill was not about the government paying for contraception (which personally I would support). It was only about making sure that people had the right to buy their own contraception. Who is against that? What are people opposed to that? Can you explain that to me?

 

[Estro Felino]

Why shouldn't the person using the contraceptives be the one paying for them?

Because health is something public.
Not a private matter.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or that, you know, we can actually have enough people to replace those who are dying. Because we don't. The birth rate has plummeted below replacement level throughout the developed world and this is one of the most important issues facing us. You can't have a functioning society with a huge and growing population of old people and a shrinking population of young working people to support them. The economy will fall apart over that alone, and we already have plenty of other reasons why it's falling apart and will get worse.

I see this as a good thing. There are too many of us, we don't live in harmony or equilibrium with our environments, technology replacing capitalism and manufacturing amd fewer of us will mean everything that's not us is going to live and breath easier.

 

[Altfish]

Why would conservatives or anyone else bother voting in a slanted poll that is obviously public so people can be shamed/called out if they say they don't care, according to the biased wording? It's useless. It's just virtue signaling.

You miss the point, the GOP are against at least 50% of the population, and they talk about 'freedom'

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You miss the point, the GOP are against at least 50% of the population, and they talk about 'freedom'

Well, all freedom is "freedom" as far as I can tell as it is different social constructs and not facts.

 

[Shaul]

Because health is something public.
Not a private matter.

What?! One of the prime arguments of pro-"choice" people is that health is a private matter.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What?! One of the prime arguments of pro-"choice" people is that health is a private matter.

If I were to guess, it is an European understanding of health as a public matter dealt with by the government as for access to it.

 

[Shaul]

But why is it partisan? Can you explain that to me?

This bill was not about the government paying for contraception (which personally I would support). It was only about making sure that people had the right to buy their own contraception. Who is against that? What are people opposed to that? Can you explain that to me?

It is partisan because the Democrats that introduced the Bill, despite understanding it had no chance of passage, introduced it to grandstand on it during elections. Sorry if you don't understand politics.

Fiscal conservatives and libertarians, as examples would oppose it. Providing contraceptives is not a necessary government function. Those that favor limited government understand that only necessary functions should be done by government.

 

[fantome profane]

Providing contraceptives is not a necessary government function.

That is not what this bill was about. Please Please Please try to understand this. This bill had nothing at all to do with "providing contraceptives.

It is hard to discuss this issue with someone who just does not understand what the issue is.

This bill had nothing to do with "providing contraceptives"!!!

Those that favor limited government understand...

Those who favour limited government would be strongly in favour of this bill if they understood it. The only function of this bill would be to limit the government. To prevent the government from using its power to take away reproductive rights.

 

[Pogo]

That is not what this bill was about. Please Please Please try to understand this. This bill had nothing at all to do with "providing contraceptives.

It is hard to discuss this issue with someone who just does not understand what the issue is.

This bill had nothing to do with "providing contraceptives"!!!


Those who favour limited government would be strongly in favour of this bill if they understood it. The only function of this bill would be to limit the government. To prevent the government from using its power to take away reproductive rights.

There are some felliniesque posters here that have confused the issue as is so common in current debates about the effect and purpose of legislation.