US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9308

On November 23 2017 10:45 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, he needs to resign ASAP.

AUSTIN, Texas — A federal judge on Wednesday overturned Texas’ ban of a common second trimester abortion procedure, setting back the state's latest effort to limit abortion.

U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel said that the ban on “dilation and evacuation” abortions, approved by the Texas Legislature in May, would force women seeking second trimester abortions to resort to riskier, invasive alternatives.

The Texas ban, part of a sweeping abortion law known as Senate Bill 8, "intervenes in the medical process of abortion prior to viability in an unduly burdensome manner," wrote Yeakel, a George W. Bush appointee, in his decision.

The ruling comes a year after the Supreme Court struck down a set of previous abortion restrictions in Texas and a decade after the Supreme Court upheld a ban on so-called partial birth abortions, another second trimester procedure. In his opinion, Yeakel pointed out the Supreme Court cited the availability of "D&E" abortions as evidence the partial birth restriction would not place an undue burden on women seeking the procedure.

Texas said it will appeal the decision to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has typically upheld the state’s previous attempts to restrict abortion. The ruling was issued on the same day an injunction blocking the law was set to expire.

"We will defend Senate Bill 8 all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary," said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

In a “D&E” procedure, the fetus is dismembered before being removed. In a five-day trial on the Texas law earlier this month, attorneys for Texas and abortion providers challenging the law focused on a provision that would require doctors to carry out an alternative method of terminating a fetus before extracting it from the womb.

Eight states, including Texas, have passed bans on dilation and evacuation abortions; the bans face legal challenges in six of those states. Last month, an Alabama court also overturned the state’s ban on the procedure, saying it poses “significant health risks” to women who want an abortion.

Texas, in defense of the ban, said that it regulates only “the moment of the death” to ensure that the fetus experiences less pain during the procedure.

“The state has a legitimate interest in banning the living dismemberment of an unborn child,” said Darren McCarty, an attorney for the state, during closing arguments.

Abortion providers challenging the ban questioned the safety of alternative procedures sometimes used for second trimester abortions, including cutting the umbilical cord; injecting potassium chloride into the fetal heart; and using digoxin, a drug injected into a fetus to stop its heartbeat. Doctors they called as witnesses argued requirements for physicians to perform another procedure before extracting a fetus would result in increased complications such as infection.

In his opinion, Yeakel wrote that the state's "legitimate interest in fetal life" does not allow it to require an additional medical procedure "not driven by medical necessity" to complete a standard D&E abortion. He said that the alternatives would be particularly onerous in Texas, which already requires patients to wait 24 hours after a physician consultation to receive an abortion.

The ban “turns back the clock” on advances in medical care, said Janet Crepps, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, during closing arguments for the abortion providers.

Crepps, who is also challenging similar bans in Kansas and Louisiana, said the case in Texas is a “flash point” for abortion rights. The decision could deter other states considering similar bans, she said in an interview.

“When legislatures come back in January, I hope that this will give them pause and make them think about whether this is how they want to spend legislative resources,” she said.

On November 23 2017 10:58 Nyxisto wrote:


Are there people out there who don't randomly grope or harass women? Jesus

On November 23 2017 11:02 micronesia wrote:

Not saying you are wrong, but just out of curiosity, why does he need to resign? I think it's obvious why he shouldn't run for another term, but what is the impetus for resigning?

On November 23 2017 11:15 NewSunshine wrote:

Without question the biggest Twitter threads I've ever seen were when women asked each other to share instances of sexual harassment they went through in their lives, with nearly every response being one story or another of some dude just randomly inviting himself to an unwelcome touch. The problem runs much deeper than most men realize.

On November 23 2017 10:58 Nyxisto wrote:


Are there people out there who don't randomly grope or harass women? Jesus

On November 23 2017 11:21 Nevuk wrote:
Honestly, Franken should probably be done after this. Definitely shouldn't run for re election, and he definitely won't be a presidential contender. As far as resigning depends on if there's a credible Minnesota replacement.

On November 23 2017 12:15 Nevuk wrote:
I don't think Ellison is a good fit for Minnesota as a whole. I'm not sure he'd be able to be re-elected (and I say that as a fan).

On November 23 2017 11:21 Nevuk wrote:
Honestly, Franken should probably be done after this. Definitely shouldn't run for re election, and he definitely won't be a presidential contender. As far as resigning depends on if there's a credible Minnesota replacement.

As a feminist and the author of a book on rape culture, I could reasonably be expected to lead the calls for Al Franken to step down, following allegations that he forced his tongue down a woman’s throat, accompanied by a photo of him grinning as he moves in to grope her breasts while she sleeps. It’s disgusting. He treated a sleeping woman as a comedy prop, no more human than the contents of Carrot Top’s trunk, and I firmly believe he should suffer social and professional consequences for it.

But I don’t believe resigning from his position is the only possible consequence, or the one that’s best for American women.
Cynics on both the right and left will presume I am passing by this particular steam tray on 2017’s smorgasbord of feminist outrage because Franken is a Democrat, and so am I. (I was even his proud constituent for two years.) In the most superficial sense, this is true. But it’s meaningless to say it’s because I am a Democrat without asking why I am a Democrat. If you understand what it means to be a Democrat today — that is, why it makes sense to vote blue over red in this highly polarized political environment — you can understand why it might not make the most sense to demand Franken’s resignation, effective immediately.

I am a Democrat because I am a feminist who lives under a two-party system, where one party consistently votes against the interests of women while the other sometimes does not. I am not a true believer in the party itself nor in any politician. I am a realist who recognizes that we get two viable choices, and Democrats are members of the only party positioned to pump the brakes on Republicans’ gleeful race toward Atwoodian dystopia. Meanwhile, I recognize that men’s harassment of and violence against women is a systemic issue, not a Democrat or Republican problem, a Hollywood problem, a sports problem, or a media problem. Its roots lie in a patriarchal culture that trains men to believe they are entitled to control women’s bodies —for sex, for sport, for childbearing, for comedy. [...]

t would feel good, momentarily, to see Franken resign and the Democratic governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, appoint a senator who has not (as far as we know) harmed women. If I believed for one second that Franken is the only Democrat in the Senate who has done something like this, with or without photographic evidence, I would see that as the best and most appropriate option. But in the world we actually live in, I’m betting that there will be more. And more after that. And they won’t all come from states with Democratic governors and a deep bench of progressive replacements. Some will, if ousted, have their successors chosen by Republicans.

On November 23 2017 13:12 Danglars wrote:
Pretty unified in this forum calling for his resignation, but in the interests of hearing both sides of the argument, here's a feminist writing an article for the Washington Post.

I'm a feminist, I study rape culture, and I don't want Al Franken to resign

On November 23 2017 13:54 Plansix wrote:
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/933555981350526976

This whole fucking state knew Moore wanted to bang 16 year olds Woody Allen style.

On Tuesday afternoon, a new story at BuzzFeed seemed like it might find a place in the picture of Russian meddling. “Secret Finding,” the headline proclaimed, “60 Russian Payments ‘To Finance Election Campaign Of 2016.’ ” The quoted section of the headline referred to the memo fields of a wire transfer sent by the Russian government to the embassy in Washington. It was Aug. 3, and the embassy was being sent $30,000 earmarked for the “election campaign of 2016.”

There was just one detail that didn’t warrant mentioning in the blurb or the alert . . . or even the story until the seventh paragraph: Russia, too, had an election last year, for its own legislative body. That election was held in mid-September, six weeks or so after the payment to the embassy in Washington.

BuzzFeed noted that it wasn’t only the U.S. Embassy that had received money. So, too, did embassies in countries as widespread as Afghanistan and Nigeria, with the last payments being sent two days after the election. After the Russian election, that is.

Why? A Russian journalist offered a possible explanation on Twitter. Alexey Kovalev: "Because we had parliamentary elections in September and expats vote in embassies?"

The impression left by BuzzFeed’s promotion is that the money was being sent to fuel its efforts in the U.S. presidential election. The details sprinkled through the story suggest that the election being funded was its own.