|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Classic GH troll, completely ignores context and substance and goes straight for the half sentence that he thinks supports his position, which requires him to redefine the goal posts to make his point.
The section in its entirety:
Supporting Federal Healthcare Research and Development
We support federal investment in healthcare delivery systems and solutions creating innovative means to provide greater, more cost-effective access to high quality healthcare. We also support federal investment in basic and applied biomedical research, especially the neuroscience research that may hold great potential for dealing with diseases and disorders such as Autism, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s. If we are to make significant headway against breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, and other killers, research must consider the special needs of formerly neglected groups. We call for expanded support for the stem-cell research that now offers the greatest hope for many afflictions – with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, and cells reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells-without the destruction of embryonic human life. We urge a ban on human cloning and on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos. We support restoring the Drug Enforcement Administration ban on the use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide. We oppose the FDA approval of Mifeprex, formerly known as RU-486, and similar drugs that terminate innocent human life after conception.
Your original question was whether Republicans believed life begins at conception and thus a majority believe IUDs to be abortions.
I think it might be fair to say Republican groups exist that would read this narrowly as defining life beginning at conception but it certainly doesn't say that directly. Mifeprex is a drug for first trimester abortions. I guess you could infer it is saying life begins somewhere between 0-49 days of conception (as approved in the US).
EDIT: Note that opposing embryonic stem cells and calling it human life could narrow it even further to 0-5 days of fertilization. There's nothing to indicate whether there's a distinction between embryos in a lab to a fertilized egg that might fail to implant in the uterus. I'm not sure if they would call it a failed pregnancy or a death if the egg is fertilized but does not implant, which could be highly instructive to their definition. Separately, it might also be instructive to know that if a fetus fails to develop within 20 weeks, if they would also consider that a failed pregnancy or a death. I do know that the itchiness of that question is in part responsible for America's unexpectedly high infant mortality, since every other OECD country would classify that as a failed pregnancy but some American doctors would write it up as a death.
But the defining term "after conception" seems to mean we can also infer that they deny that birth control, anything that prevents conception, is considered abortion. Which would mean the answer to your original question is no, a majority of Republicans believe IUDs are not abortions.
|
On May 17 2015 20:17 coverpunch wrote:Classic GH troll, completely ignores context and substance and goes straight for the half sentence that he thinks supports his position, which requires him to redefine the goal posts to make his point. The section in its entirety: Show nested quote +Supporting Federal Healthcare Research and Development
We support federal investment in healthcare delivery systems and solutions creating innovative means to provide greater, more cost-effective access to high quality healthcare. We also support federal investment in basic and applied biomedical research, especially the neuroscience research that may hold great potential for dealing with diseases and disorders such as Autism, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s. If we are to make significant headway against breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, and other killers, research must consider the special needs of formerly neglected groups. We call for expanded support for the stem-cell research that now offers the greatest hope for many afflictions – with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, and cells reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells-without the destruction of embryonic human life. We urge a ban on human cloning and on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos. We support restoring the Drug Enforcement Administration ban on the use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide. We oppose the FDA approval of Mifeprex, formerly known as RU-486, and similar drugs that terminate innocent human life after conception. Your original question was whether Republicans believed life begins at conception and thus a majority believe IUDs to be abortions. The last sentence of this portion says nothing of the sort to that question. I think it might be fair to say Republican groups exist that would read this narrowly as defining life beginning at conception but it certainly doesn't say that directly. Mifeprex is a drug for first trimester abortions. I guess you could infer it is saying life begins somewhere between 0-49 days of conception (as approved in the US). But the defining term "after conception" seems to mean we can also infer that they deny that birth control, anything that prevents conception, is considered abortion. Which would mean the answer to your original question is no, a majority of Republicans believe IUDs are not abortions.
But that is also not as clear cut. Most IUDs not only prevent conception (if they do that at all, some research shows that in vitro effects on sperm could be overestimating the in vivo effect) but also implantation.
And regarding the full party platform, reading those nonconsequential fluff-texts is terribly annoying. "[C]reating innovative means" my ass. Reinventing the wheel is not a good prioritization, when there are so many healthcare systems in the world to learn from. I mean learning, and not picking the one thing about Singapores healthcare system that you like without the rest that makes it work...... or the usual repeal obamacare bait and switch "of course we can keep 2 legs of the 3 legged stool without it tipping over".
|
Shrug, welcome to US politics. Arguing over nonconsequential fluff-text is our game.
|
Well i would go so far as to argue that "deal making" trumping over "realpolitik" is an even bigger issue of "[your] game". The idea that finding a "compromise" between totally exaggerated extremes somehow leads to something reasonable in between. Abortion is literally worse than the holocaust, in scale and disregard for human life, so lets limit access to it slightly by requiring weird informed consent stipulations.
|
lol call it what you want.
Mifeprex is a drug for first trimester abortions. I guess you could infer it is saying life begins somewhere between 0-49 days of conception (as approved in the US).
Well that's most abortions and a majority are a result of failed birth control. So my point wasn't to prove a majority of republicans are against IUD's (hence the question mark). The point was the majority don't hold a reasonable point of view regarding women who's birth control fails and or need 1st trimester abortions.
The IUD's comes from efforts (like the article from Colorado) of republicans to restrict access to them and other forms of family management.
Several prominent Republicans, including GOP gubernatorial nominee Bob Beauprez and state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, chair of the Health and Human Services Committee, have characterized IUDs as abortifacients, or substances that induce abortion — a statement health care experts say is inaccurate.
Lundberg, R-Berthoud, called CDPHE arguments “poor science.” He described the IUDs as potentially “stopping a small child from implanting,” referring to the fertilized egg. The definition of pregnancy used by CDPHE and other scientists has pregnancy beginning at the implantation of the fertilized egg.
“Protecting life is a very big issue,” Lundberg said. “In my mind, that’s what government is all about, and to protect the life of the most vulnerable and most innocent seems to be the most important.”
Lundberg has introduced a bill this session defining life as beginning at the moment of fertilization.
Source
Might of forgotten but IUD's were one of the birth control methods Hobby Lobby called abortion also.
|
If you know what a majority of Republicans believe, why are you posting here? Go be a Democratic strategist with your amazing powers of deduction. Hell, the GOP would probably pay you a boatload of money to tell them what a majority of their own constituents are thinking too.
EDIT: Hobby Lobby doesn't represent anyone but themselves. Why do you think you can project the personal beliefs of their owners to a majority of the 30 million or so members of the Republican Party?
|
On May 17 2015 20:52 coverpunch wrote:
If you know what a majority of Republicans believe, why are you posting here? Go be a Democratic strategist with your amazing powers of deduction. Hell, the GOP would probably pay you a boatload of money to tell them what a majority of their own constituents are thinking too.
lol no need to get your panties in a bunch. It doesn't even matter if it's actually a majority really, just enough to screw up the primary. I think it's a majority and you don't, that's fine. But I think it's been shown it's not a few fringers like was being suggested originally.
But hey, what I was really after is what the republican plan for women who's birth control fails is and that seems to be non-existent?
@EDIT: lol come on man... You don't think mentioning that the republican party disagreed with hobby lobby about IUD's being abortion would of come up? I mean the left made it pretty clear that's how they felt?
|
The GOP platform position said they encourage women to get counseling and give the child up for adoption.
Democrats don't have a platform position on abortion at all. Do you have a comment on that?
EDIT: Gosh, your memory is hazy even in the age of Google. Democrats introduced a bill in the Senate to overturn the Hobby Lobby decision. It failed a cloture vote and Democrats dropped it. The Republicans did nothing except accuse Democrats of trying to score cheap political points. Democrats haven't brought it up since. You've told people before to not project or put thoughts into the minds of black protesters in Baltimore. Please show the same courtesy to Republicans.
|
On May 17 2015 21:01 coverpunch wrote:
The GOP platform position said they encourage women to get counseling and give the child up for adoption.
Democrats don't have a platform position on abortion at all. Do you have a comment on that?
EDIT: Gosh, your memory is hazy even in the age of Google. Democrats introduced a bill in the Senate to overturn the Hobby Lobby decision. It failed a cloture vote and Democrats dropped it. The Republicans did nothing except accuse Democrats of trying to score cheap political points. Democrats haven't brought it up since. You've told people before to not project or put thoughts into the minds of black protesters in Baltimore. Please show the same courtesy to Republicans.
wat?
Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
http://www.democrats.org/party-platform
You have an interesting way of reading these platforms man...
From the Republican platform...
We renew our call for
replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually. It is effective, science-based, and empowers teens to achieve optimal health outcomes and avoid risks of sexual activity
|
Oops, missed that on my phone. Corrections and retractions.
But they do completely ignore the question of when life begins and say the bare minimum about birth control. Their only position is opposing Republican efforts to defund specific programs.
I do want to say that I think you missed some important questions about the chart. For one, who are the 39% of Republicans who know the party explicitly opposes abortion but is part of the party anyways? For another, who are the 30% of Democrats who want abortion to be illegal in most or all cases and especially the 13% who want it illegal in all cases?
|
On May 17 2015 21:38 coverpunch wrote:
Oops, missed that on my phone. Corrections and retractions.
But they do completely ignore the question of when life begins and say the bare minimum about birth control. Their only position is opposing Republican efforts to defund specific programs.
I do want to say that I think you missed some important questions about the chart. For one, who are the 39% of Republicans who know the party explicitly opposes abortion but is part of the party anyways? For another, who are the 30% of Democrats who want abortion to be illegal in most or all cases and especially the 13% who want it illegal in all cases?
They are called religiously conservative Democrats, and most of them are Catholic. They tend to like how the Democrats actually care about poor people, so they overlook the doctrinal inconsistency in the interest of helping those who need it.
|
On May 17 2015 21:38 coverpunch wrote:
Oops, missed that on my phone. Corrections and retractions.
But they do completely ignore the question of when life begins and say the bare minimum about birth control. Their only position is opposing Republican efforts to defund specific programs.
I do want to say that I think you missed some important questions about the chart. For one, who are the 39% of Republicans who know the party explicitly opposes abortion but is part of the party anyways? For another, who are the 30% of Democrats who want abortion to be illegal in most or all cases and especially the 13% who want it illegal in all cases?
Well I appreciate the retraction but it still seems we aren't reading the same thing. They seem to think it's not the governments role to set a date on where life begins. More importantly it's a stupid question. What matters is what we legislate about pregnant women. Democrats seem unambiguous in that the platform position is those decisions should be left to doctors, women, clergy, family, etc.. not the federal government.
As for birth control what do you think was missing?
|
A provision in Obamacare governing spending guidelines for health insurers essentially has forced carriers to become more efficient and responsive, a study released Wednesday finds.
The joint study from the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation says minimum requirements in the Affordable Care Act that mandate how much insurers must spend on medical care resulted in savings of $5 billion for consumers in 2011 and 2012, the first two full years after Obamacare was enacted in March 2010.
Further, the new spending requirements forced few, if any, insurers out of business, said Lisa Clemans-Cope, a senior researcher for the Urban Institute and one of the study’s authors.
“It looks like that just wasn’t such a big deal,” she said. The group representing carriers, America’s Health Insurance Plans, had yet to respond to requests for comments on the study.
The law says individual and small-group insurers must spend at least 80% of premiums on providing health care, or pay rebates to consumers. For large-group carriers, the threshold is 85%, but many of those insurers were already spending that much on medical care anyway, Clemans-Cope says.
For 2011 policies, insurers paid $1.1 billion in rebates. By 2012, insurers had adjusted premiums to comply with the new guidelines, though they still ended up paying more than $500 million in rebates. But that adjustment in premiums saved consumers an estimated $3.4 billion, Clemans-Cope says.
Obamacare making insurers more responsive, efficient: study
|
On May 17 2015 21:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 21:38 coverpunch wrote:
Oops, missed that on my phone. Corrections and retractions.
But they do completely ignore the question of when life begins and say the bare minimum about birth control. Their only position is opposing Republican efforts to defund specific programs.
I do want to say that I think you missed some important questions about the chart. For one, who are the 39% of Republicans who know the party explicitly opposes abortion but is part of the party anyways? For another, who are the 30% of Democrats who want abortion to be illegal in most or all cases and especially the 13% who want it illegal in all cases? They are called religiously conservative Democrats, and most of them are Catholic. They tend to like how the Democrats actually care about poor people, so they overlook the doctrinal inconsistency in the interest of helping those who need it.
Yeah; it's mostly a mixture of Catholics (Hispanic Catholics in particular) and Black Evangelicals. About half of Hispanics think abortion should be illegal most or all of the time.
For whatever it's worth, despite the conservative streak of the US Bishops conference, most Catholic clergy is politically liberal on most issues, and feels very strongly about protection of the poor and acceptance of immigrants. Opposition to war and the death penalty is also deeply ingrained, for anybody looking for pro-life consistency from somebody or another.
|
SCRANTON, Pa. — A longtime judge has been ordered to spend nearly three decades in prison for his role in a massive juvenile justice bribery scandal that prompted the state's high court to toss thousands of convictions.
Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. was sentenced Thursday to 28 years in federal prison for taking $1 million in bribes from the builder of a pair of juvenile detention centers in a case that became known as "kids-for-cash." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed about 4,000 convictions issued by Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008, saying he violated the constitutional rights of the juveniles, including the right to legal counsel and the right to intelligently enter a plea. Ciavarella, 61, was tried and convicted of racketeering charges earlier this year.
His attorneys had asked for a "reasonable" sentence in court papers, saying, in effect, that he's already been punished enough. "The media attention to this matter has exceeded coverage given to many and almost all capital murders, and despite protestation, he will forever be unjustly branded as the 'Kids for Cash' judge," their sentencing memo said.
Federal prosecutors accused Ciavarella and a second judge, Michael Conahan, of taking more than $2 million in bribes from the builder of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care detention centers and extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the facilities' co-owner.
Source
How could prosecutors in his courtroom have not noticed this shit?
|
On May 18 2015 04:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +SCRANTON, Pa. — A longtime judge has been ordered to spend nearly three decades in prison for his role in a massive juvenile justice bribery scandal that prompted the state's high court to toss thousands of convictions.
Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. was sentenced Thursday to 28 years in federal prison for taking $1 million in bribes from the builder of a pair of juvenile detention centers in a case that became known as "kids-for-cash." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed about 4,000 convictions issued by Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008, saying he violated the constitutional rights of the juveniles, including the right to legal counsel and the right to intelligently enter a plea. Ciavarella, 61, was tried and convicted of racketeering charges earlier this year.
His attorneys had asked for a "reasonable" sentence in court papers, saying, in effect, that he's already been punished enough. "The media attention to this matter has exceeded coverage given to many and almost all capital murders, and despite protestation, he will forever be unjustly branded as the 'Kids for Cash' judge," their sentencing memo said.
Federal prosecutors accused Ciavarella and a second judge, Michael Conahan, of taking more than $2 million in bribes from the builder of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care detention centers and extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the facilities' co-owner. SourceHow could prosecutors in his courtroom have not noticed this shit?
By being in on it?
I'm more wondering about the person who did the bribing. What is happening with that?
|
On May 18 2015 04:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2015 04:28 GreenHorizons wrote:SCRANTON, Pa. — A longtime judge has been ordered to spend nearly three decades in prison for his role in a massive juvenile justice bribery scandal that prompted the state's high court to toss thousands of convictions.
Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. was sentenced Thursday to 28 years in federal prison for taking $1 million in bribes from the builder of a pair of juvenile detention centers in a case that became known as "kids-for-cash." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed about 4,000 convictions issued by Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008, saying he violated the constitutional rights of the juveniles, including the right to legal counsel and the right to intelligently enter a plea. Ciavarella, 61, was tried and convicted of racketeering charges earlier this year.
His attorneys had asked for a "reasonable" sentence in court papers, saying, in effect, that he's already been punished enough. "The media attention to this matter has exceeded coverage given to many and almost all capital murders, and despite protestation, he will forever be unjustly branded as the 'Kids for Cash' judge," their sentencing memo said.
Federal prosecutors accused Ciavarella and a second judge, Michael Conahan, of taking more than $2 million in bribes from the builder of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care detention centers and extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the facilities' co-owner. SourceHow could prosecutors in his courtroom have not noticed this shit? By being in on it? I'm more wondering about the person who did the bribing. What is happening with that?
Right? How could they not be? Yet they aren't even mentioned? (couldn't have anything to do with the mentality in my sig though  )
The briber got 1 year and a fine (2x the large payoff to the judge). Probably wont even do the year. It seems he's politically connected and politicians didn't need him blabbing about other people he's bribed.
A Dauphin County judge will now decide whether to release the video that shows Hummelstown police officer Lisa Mearkle shooting and killing David Kassick. “It’s the cornerstone of the case. There are no other eyewitnesses to what occurred. The video is everything,” said Johnny Baer, who is Chief Deputy District Attorney.
The video was recorded on February 2 by the taser Mearkle used on Kassick. The incident started when Kassick took off during a traffic stop for expired inspection stickers. He drove back to his house in South Hanover Township with Mearkle in pursuit. When he tried to run into the backyard Mearkle chased after him. That’s when she shot Kassick, who was unarmed, in the back.
Mearkle’s lawyer maintains that it was self defense because it looked like Kassick may have been reaching for a weapon. Josh Bonn, an attorney with the Pennsylvania Media Group, spearheaded the effort to get the video released before the trial.
“There is a national dialogue at this time regarding the conduct of of police officers and this video is a contemporaneous reporting of an allegation that a police officer was engaged in misconduct. It’s important that the public can see what exactly happened,” said Bonn.
The judge said releasing the video would be highly unusual.
Source
Better Source
The shots in the back being ~4 seconds apart sounds bad.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
no constituency is fully democratic or republican. You just manipulate your platform to try to include as many groups as you can to win votes. Thats where you get reagan democrats and Hispanics being a more split voteing bloc the you might think.
Black people being fiercely democrat I don't understand. Being at least open to accepting the other party would give them some power in our democracy as it would force the dems to actually do something to help them instead of just being a get out the vote target.
|
On May 18 2015 07:36 Sermokala wrote:
no constituency is fully democratic or republican. You just manipulate your platform to try to include as many groups as you can to win votes. Thats where you get reagan democrats and Hispanics being a more split voteing bloc the you might think.
Black people being fiercely democrat I don't understand. Being at least open to accepting the other party would give them some power in our democracy as it would force the dems to actually do something to help them instead of just being a get out the vote target.
Did you miss the "outreach to the black community" from republicans? It's not us, it's them. I have a feeling this election will prove it so long has Hillary doesn't totally fall apart.
The reason that black people don't vote more than ~10% republican is certainly not because they aren't open to being appealed to by republicans.
|
On May 18 2015 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2015 04:34 Gorsameth wrote:On May 18 2015 04:28 GreenHorizons wrote:SCRANTON, Pa. — A longtime judge has been ordered to spend nearly three decades in prison for his role in a massive juvenile justice bribery scandal that prompted the state's high court to toss thousands of convictions.
Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. was sentenced Thursday to 28 years in federal prison for taking $1 million in bribes from the builder of a pair of juvenile detention centers in a case that became known as "kids-for-cash." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed about 4,000 convictions issued by Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008, saying he violated the constitutional rights of the juveniles, including the right to legal counsel and the right to intelligently enter a plea. Ciavarella, 61, was tried and convicted of racketeering charges earlier this year.
His attorneys had asked for a "reasonable" sentence in court papers, saying, in effect, that he's already been punished enough. "The media attention to this matter has exceeded coverage given to many and almost all capital murders, and despite protestation, he will forever be unjustly branded as the 'Kids for Cash' judge," their sentencing memo said.
Federal prosecutors accused Ciavarella and a second judge, Michael Conahan, of taking more than $2 million in bribes from the builder of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care detention centers and extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the facilities' co-owner. SourceHow could prosecutors in his courtroom have not noticed this shit? By being in on it? I'm more wondering about the person who did the bribing. What is happening with that? Right? How could they not be? Yet they aren't even mentioned? (couldn't have anything to do with the mentality in my sig though ) The briber got 1 year and a fine (2x the large payoff to the judge). Probably wont even do the year. It seems he's politically connected and politicians didn't need him blabbing about other people he's bribed. Show nested quote +A Dauphin County judge will now decide whether to release the video that shows Hummelstown police officer Lisa Mearkle shooting and killing David Kassick. “It’s the cornerstone of the case. There are no other eyewitnesses to what occurred. The video is everything,” said Johnny Baer, who is Chief Deputy District Attorney.
The video was recorded on February 2 by the taser Mearkle used on Kassick. The incident started when Kassick took off during a traffic stop for expired inspection stickers. He drove back to his house in South Hanover Township with Mearkle in pursuit. When he tried to run into the backyard Mearkle chased after him. That’s when she shot Kassick, who was unarmed, in the back.
Mearkle’s lawyer maintains that it was self defense because it looked like Kassick may have been reaching for a weapon. Josh Bonn, an attorney with the Pennsylvania Media Group, spearheaded the effort to get the video released before the trial.
“There is a national dialogue at this time regarding the conduct of of police officers and this video is a contemporaneous reporting of an allegation that a police officer was engaged in misconduct. It’s important that the public can see what exactly happened,” said Bonn.
The judge said releasing the video would be highly unusual.
SourceBetter SourceThe shots in the back being ~4 seconds apart sounds bad. + Show Spoiler +
The cop was female, victim was male. Gender wars are starting now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
