Ah yes, the party of 'keep the government out of my business!' is all for sticking their noses into other people's business. Fucking hypocrites.
this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
7 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
2948 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How the hell do republican women even exist not to mention all the republican women in government. Does none of these affect them or are they always pregnant?
Some are white and wealthy enough that the rules don't apply. Some are in abusive relationships and feel forced to vote a certain way. Some are in traditional marriages where the husband controls everything, especially what's on TV and see nothing but Fox news. Some are older and in social circles that completely avoids politics, so they just vote how husband says to vote. Some are incredibly religious and only vote the way the pastor says, because they truly think God wants that.
Abortion is wrong but if I needed one then mine is ethical because I had a good reason. /s
Rules for thee but not for me
The hell is wrong with republicans, can they stop being dumb for once?
You mean evil
And no, they can't stop
You’d think this was something new.
The Government of Putin can shove their agenda up their damn a-hole.
They want the health records of trans people as well. They want to make lists of people, so they know who to prosecute when they make being on the lists illegal.
People are freaking out about the database thing but check out the zinger on the last 3 pages of the 23 page bill.
It looks like this law would allow a woman to accuse any man of being the father of her unborn child, force immediate child support payments while she's pregnant, and the accused man would not be able to question or confirm he is the father with a paternity test.
‘‘(35) provide that the State will establish and13 enforce child support obligations of the biological fa-14 ther of an unborn child (and subsequent to the birth15 of the child) to the mother of such child provided16 that—"
(skipping unrelated sections A-D then comes section E)
"‘(E) any measure to establish the pater-9 nity of a child (born or unborn) shall not be re-10 quired without the consent of the mother; and"
Your local politicians should start having a lot of children right now.
It’s a completely normal idea. /s
Small government, not interfering with people's freedoms, just as they always preach.
Republicans: We need a federal database to track pregnant women!
Republicans: Putting gun owners into a federal database is a violation of personal freedoms!
Making sense isn't their thing
Yeah, it’s called every pregnant woman’s blood draw sample for testing gestational diabetes. Not to mention all of the other blood draws. Does she believe that DOJ isn’t sent dna off of nearly every blood draw that doctors, and hospitals, make? Considering how many surnames and faces repeat in politics, I bet the feds all keep track of who is breeding so well, that they can predict when the next baby will be born to which family. The only ones they probably can’t forecast, after so many decades of watching families breed in this country, are the migrants that cross the border while pregnant.
I don’t work in the lab but I guarantee where I work, none of our samples go to the government lol
Government Databases are BAD! UNLESS it's a database putting a target on my Daughter's back! That's OK!
As pointed out to me yesterday in a similar thread, all this person wants to do is create a website with resources trying to steer women away from abortion. Not track them.
they can consent to share their contact information "which the (Department of Health and Human Services) Secretary may use to conduct outreach via phone or email to follow up with users on additional resources."
The bill doesn’t explain how this collected data would be handled or who would have access to it. Critics said that vagueness poses concerns for pregnant women’s privacy.
That is right, but also wrong.
A. Just because giving data is consensual, does not mean it can't/won't be used against you. "Anything you say or said will be used against you in a court of law"
B. There are no protections for this data. Who gets access to it?
This is a trap being masqueraded as helpful for women that are pregnant, when this is the same trap as "Life clinics" faking being abortion clinics.
I agree with you.
B. There are no protections for this data. Who gets access to it?
The only protection the requires is that there is a "privacy policy". Here's the actual text of the bill:
on page 3
"‘(4) A mechanism for users to take an assess-8 ment through the website and provide consent to use9 the user’s contact information, which the Secretary10 may use to conduct outreach via phone or email to11 follow up with users on additional resources that12 would be helpful for the users to review."
and page 13
"have a privacy policy and procedures13 in place to ensure that—14 (i) the name, address, telephone num-15 ber, or any other information that might16 identify any woman seeking services sup-17 ported through the grant is not made pub-18 lic or shared with any other entity without19 the written consent of the woman; and20 (ii) the grantee adheres to require-21 ments comparable to those applicable22 under the HIPAA privacy regulation (as23 defined in section 1180(b)(3) of the Social24 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d–9(b)(3)))"