Warren Proposes Sweeping Ban on Location and Health Data Sales (theverge.com) 227
As the Supreme Court's expected decision to overturn Roe v. Wade looms over Washington, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has announced sweeping legislation to ban the sale of location and health data. From a report: Warren's Health and Location Protection Act -- cosponsored by a slate of Democratic senators, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) -- would bar "data brokers from selling or transferring location data and health data." There are few limitations, making the bill one of the most strident proposals aimed at regulating data sales. "Data brokers profit from the location data of millions of people, posing serious risks to Americans everywhere by selling their most private information," Warren said in a statement on Wednesday. "With this extremist Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and states seeking to criminalize essential health care, it is more crucial than ever for Congress to protect consumers' sensitive data."
bad enough that states want this (Score:5, Insightful)
but they wont rest until they outlaw it country-wide.
whatever happend to 'states rights'? we all knew it was bullshit but its super clear, now. they only want states rights when it goes their way.
if a woman travels to another state, what business is it of yours? why can't people mind their own business and let women make their own decisions.
Re:bad enough that states want this (Score:5, Informative)
why can't people mind their own business and let women make their own decisions.
Authoritarians cannot deal with people making their own decisions. They have to control everything and everybody. Just as if that had ever worked out well in human history or was compatible with any reasonable moral principles. But they cannot help themselves, and the usually rationalize it as "being right" (universally ignoring observable reality) or "being on a mission from god / the great leader / all that is right and proper / etc." As long as we, as the human race, fail to make sure these people stop doing damage, this crap will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Authoritarians cannot deal with people making their own decisions. They have to control everything and everybody.
False, they only hate women. There's not a single piece of legislation that regulates in any way what a man can do with his body. ... Unless you count legislation that subsidises erection pills and you won't see that getting overturned by the limp-dick republicans in congress anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
False, they only hate women.
It is nowhere near that simple. Have you looked at what happens to men after a divorce, for example?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But you know what? There's another question here that needs answering. What the hell does any of that have to do with the bill Warren introduced? "I support abortion, so we need to pass new consumer data laws!" What? Sounds lik
Re:bad enough that states want this (Score:4, Informative)
Did you know that more men support abortion than women? It's not by much, something like 51:49 vs 49:51, but interesting
I'll call you out on this. You're misinformed or lying.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ [pewresearch.org]
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx [gallup.com]
From the Pew Research page:
Majorities of both men and women express support for legal abortion, though women are somewhat more likely than men to hold this view (63% vs. 58%).
Another interesting graph on the Pew Research page is the "Views on abortion by religious affiliation" one, where it shows that the only religious demographic that is overall opposed to abortion in all circumstances is white evangelical Protestants.
Re:bad enough that states want this (Score:5, Informative)
Okay. Let's go over it.
You may have noticed an increasing trend where government wants to investigate The People (either for specific crimes, or just trawling for whatever they can find) but they keep running into that damn 4th Amendment.
But the courts have long upheld that the 4th is only a limit on what the government can do, not what can be done. Private actors are free to gather whatever information they're able to, and especially in the modern age, a lot of this information is sent by people's user-agents to private actors. The upshot is that private databases contain a lot of information about people that the government would love to have (in order to support actions against those people) but can't legally receive directly from the people. But getting indirectly, by purchasing it from whoever did the surveillance, is apparently legal.
Lately, a lot of states' legislatures have enacted new laws indicating an increased interest in abortion. They would like to more easily detect when abortion has happened, and who might have been involved. Normally this would be a futile desire because abortion produces virtually no external effect in the world -- an act without any consequences to others.
But it's been fashionable and practical for the last decade or two for people to carry little computers around, with radios which constantly talk to other computers, and those other computers remember who they talked to and where. The upshot is that if a layman consumer buys a phone and uses its default settings, they create records in private databases of everywhere they have been.
This is useful for governments, if they want to establish that patients and providers were in the same place at the same time. Putting a government camera in the parking lot for purposes of establishing this would be illegal, but buying the same data from private databases is not currently illegal.
Oh, and putting cameras in parking lots for these purposes can, under some circumstances, be illegal for two reasons, which is easy to forget. Sure, there's the 4th amendment. But another one that people might forget, is that the parking lot might be out of jurisdiction.
So, for example, the state of Texas might want to know who is visiting a clinic in eastern New Mexico, but the New Mexico government won't cooperate because FUCK YOU AND YOUR POLICE STATE. But it's still legal for Texas to buy who-was-where information about people in New Mexico, from these private parties.
Warren's legislation appears to be intended to cause the results that a state like Texas would get, to be similar to what they would get in a lower-tech world, where people weren't constantly telling private databases where they have been. It's intended to cause life-under-the-4th-amendment in 2022 to be the same as life-under-the-4th-amendment in 1791.
While many of us think that conservatives won't ever be able to bring back the good ol' days of the 18th century, I do sometimes get the impression that we're the minority and there actually is fairly widespread support for preserving the intent of the 4th amendment despite its technological obsolescence. Warren is obviously banking on the hope that the 4th amendment is still popular, not yet swept aside by newer attitudes.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that more men support abortion than women? It's not by much, something like 51:49 vs 49:51, but interesting.
I'd be interested in a cite for those numbers. Is that a corrected figure based only only people who support abortion and what percentage are male vs female?
They stand out as quite wrong in general with pro-abortion group being a clear majority (and has been consistently across all polls for a long time).
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/03... [npr.org]
https://www.pewresearch.org/fa... [pewresearch.org]
This one breaks down the numbers and shows while the trend moved in the right direction it's actually 48:61 in favour of women: https://news [gallup.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look i get it, you are a Democrat.
Clearly you get nothing. I'm not even American. However calling an abortion "murder in the womb" is by far the dumbest fucking thing in the world. Go fuck your bible and stay out of other people's lives.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So then all abortion must be outlawed because some people want late term abortion? Why not just work towards no late term abortions?
Or are you just grasping at straws here to justify your views?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That means when you use a condom while cheating on your wife with your mistress you are committing murder.
Don't be silly. That would be telling me what they can do. They will only ban female contraceptives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/r... [pewtrusts.org]
Never discount even one stupid idiot. If you wait for a majority before you consider that proof, well I see. Clever. You want to delegitimise the other side until the damage has already been done.
This is not an isolated case. This is being talked about by multiple people in multiple states. Just because your orange fuckwit didn't take it to the election as a core promise doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really want to associate the democrat party as a whole with people like Pete Singer? If ONE group is subject to b
Re: (Score:2)
'you think Donald Trump is god emperor material'
I know many Trump supporters, and none either state this nor seem to believe it. Seems like a Straw Man argument, though it may be an Ad Hominem argument well clothed.
Oh, but the Ad Hominem arguments follow quickly from you, so I suspect that is your intention in the whole.
Re: (Score:3)
But maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe you're just misapplyi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:bad enough that states want this (Score:5, Insightful)
if a woman travels to another state, what business is it of yours? why can't people mind their own business and let women make their own decisions.
Republican politicians don't really care about anti-abortion, just that it riles up the ultra conservative portion of their base, gets votes and donations to keep them in power. /cynical
Re:bad enough that states want this (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Good example: Trump. He used to be pro-abortion and did not care about religion. As soon as he wanted do get elected, he changes all this to what got him the most votes. No moral compass, just do whatever it takes to get power. While there are examples on the right side of the political spectrum as well(in the US: "Democrats"), on the ultra-right side (US: "Republicans") it is hard to find politicians that do not work like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, now, the former alleged president had a spiritual advisor, Dr. Paula White. She's one of those Prosperity Preachers (naturally) like Joel Olsteen who wouldn't open his Church to displaced people when some hurricane came through Houston a while back.
It does say something about the Republican party, which says it believes in individual responsibility and rights, that it sold it little black soul to an authoritarian dingbat.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: Trump does what gets the loudest cheers. I'm not sure he understands votes as such.
Well, his voters do not really either, so that works out for him. They somehow (unfortunately) manage to vote though.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like it, yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some conservatives do care about abortion, and not just for religious reasons. If women have more control over their fertility then they will gain more equality, which they see as a zero sum game meaning that any benefits women see will be a detriment to men.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can start with listing every name of every senator trying to reject medicaid support for planned parenthood, while at the same time supporting subsidies for the little blue pill.
There's zero abortion related reason to support contraceptives for only one gender while trying to ban them for another. Wieland wasn't the only human shitstain in support of such a measure.
Assumption of good faith (Score:5, Insightful)
More than that, though, I don't think it's helpful to assume bad faith, either in an individual or general sense. Even if you genuinely think all Republican politicians are cackling Saturday morning cartoon villains rather than people who grew up in environments that taught different (and sometimes incompatible) values to your own, it's important to assume good faith when engaging with people you disagree with purely for pragmatic reasons (e.g., actually accomplishing anything). If you always assume the people on the "other side" are acting in bad faith, then you also assume they have nothing worthwhile to say, that they have no concern for ethics or truth, and that there's no reason to listen, engage, compromise, etc. This undermines the entire foundation of debate and ensures deadlock; why even talk at that point?
Even if others won't afford you the same courtesy, it's important to try to engage with the assumption of good faith. This is something I've always tried to do, even in the face of people assuming the worst of me or insulting me. Because eventually, if you engage people as actual human beings instead of assuming they're cackling villains, they'll start to do the same back to you, and from there you can sometimes start to find common ground or tolerable compromises in situations where common ground isn't possible. Without that, I don't think it's possible to live together peacefully with people of different values in the long term.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Roe is overturned, it would turn abortion in to an actual political issue where voters would get to choose the morality of it. It would no longer be some litmus test for potential Justices and remove the political aspect from the Court. It would only be outlawed nation-wide if voters in every state supported local politicians that promise to outlaw abortion because it would become a 'states rights' issue rather than en edict from a Federal Court. The Court would not be outlawing it (it would be correc
Re:bad enough that states want this (Score:5, Insightful)
Having it outlawed in every state would make a great number of people happy. Not because they're anti-woman, but because they believe in the value of human life. .
Right, value of human life. /s
What of the value of the pregnant woman's life?
Or for that matter, the value of the child's life, after the woman has given birth?
I don't see cheap / free childcare services being talked about.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting Roe thrown out is only the first step. They'll be in Congress advocating a nationwide ban on all abortions unless Republican wives really, really want one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they will, and they won't achieve it so long as significant opposition remains among the voters.
Now, obviously, a far larger problem in the U.S.A. is simply the plurality-takes-all voting systems which allows minority rules and ideas that aren' that popular to take shape, as well as of course that one only has two actual options to choose from when voting, which affects this issue and everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, a handful of states would go to the opposite extreme and have abortion with no limits at all, including after birth.
Literally no one is advocating for an abortion 'after birth'.
Though, if they want a post birth abortion, they'll just send the kid to public school and wait for him to be shot because MUH 2ND AMENDMENT.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having it outlawed in every state would make a great number of people happy. Not because they're anti-woman, but because they believe in the value of human life. They won't rest advocating for what they believe in because it is a deeply moral issue to them.
I'll repost a comment I've made previously about this:
I would have an easier time accepting the conservative opposition to abortion if they weren't also opposed to comprehensive sex education, widely and freely available contraception, cheap health care, and a strong welfare state. They claim to care about the life of the child, but that claim rings hollow to me in light of the above.
My current working hypothesis, which fits all the data I've seen so far, is that conservatives believe that women (and only w
Re: (Score:2)
If it gets overturned, my guess is that a handful of states will outright ban abortion except in cases of rape/incest.
Why would you guess that? Some legislators have already drafted laws with specifically *no* carveout for rape/incest.
but because they believe in the value of human life.
Horseshit. The pro-birthers don't give a flying fuck about human life. That is clear. They have shown they want unwanted children born into abject poverty. They have shown they wanted medically unviable children born regardless of disfigurement or disabilities they will be stuck with for their statistically short life. And above all they have shown they want a medically unviable birth to occu
Re: (Score:2)
You need a therapist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When they can tell people how to live, they feel they are virtue signaling God to accept their sorry asses into Heaven when they go tits up. Somehow, God being all-powerful prevents Him from fending for Himself and requires these Quislings to help him out.
Re: (Score:2)
whatever happend to 'states rights'? we all knew it was bullshit but its super clear, now. they only want states rights when it goes their way.
Just like everyone else; just like every other “right”
“rights” have been a farce since the dawn of man. — Freedom is not so much a delusion granted to the weak by the strong, as it is a delusion granted to the weak-minded, by themselves./p.
Re: (Score:3)
but they wont rest until they outlaw it country-wide.
whatever happend to 'states rights'? we all knew it was bullshit but its super clear, now. they only want states rights when it goes their way.
if a woman travels to another state, what business is it of yours? why can't people mind their own business and let women make their own decisions.
This issue is bigger than abortion. There's a great episode of the Throughline podcast from a few years ago about the rise of the anti-abortion movement. Apocalypse Now [npr.org] Everyone should be paying attention. Some really powerful forces have been playing a long, long game.
Re:bad enough that states want this (Score:4, Insightful)
Under every formulation of the claimed right to an abortion the authority to regulate it should belong to the States. Even the absurd marketing claim that ending life is healthcare puts it under the States sovereign authority over public health. If you consider it an unenumerated right, well the 10th Amendment says the power to say so is not a Federal matter - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Yes, pro-life advocates want it banned everywhere, but the potential decision would not do that. Do you think California will ban abortion if given the chance? What about Illinois or New York? Jersey? Maryland? No, it will just make a question that is no less controversial today than it was almost 50 years ago, one that is answered much closer to the People. Why shouldn't Georgia get to decide for Georgia and Vermont for Vermont?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
but they wont rest until they outlaw it country-wide.
whatever happend to 'states rights'? we all knew it was bullshit but its super clear, now. they only want states rights when it goes their way.
if a woman travels to another state, what business is it of yours? why can't people mind their own business and let women make their own decisions.
Well, it's all connected, but another piece of the puzzle seems to be:
Allow enough time for any given private company to either get the maximum money out of the situation and/or change their business model to exploit the change before we make the change.
So, if we get what we need here, it won't be for a few years, and the horses are sure to be out of the barn by then.
Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Ban the selling location and health data, yes.
How about banning the collection of location and health data? Wouldn't that make more sense?
As in, if you provide a service that needs location or health data, your service must use the information and then forget it. The moment you record it, you break the law.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
How about banning the collection of location and health data? Wouldn't that make more sense?
No. Collecting health data is critical for providing healthcare. Yet there's zero benefit to being able to sell it to another party. Even if you say ban the collection without signing a waver, people will still sign the waver since they will be forced to to receive healthcare so a law banning the sale is still required.
Forgetting past health treatments is a recipe for feeding addiction, incorrect diagnosis, accidental overdoses, incorrect prescriptions, etc. Modern medical diagnosis will simply not function without recording the results of the several people involved.
Re: (Score:2)
How about banning the collection of location and health data? Wouldn't that make more sense?
No. Collecting health data is critical for providing healthcare. Yet there's zero benefit to being able to sell it to another party. Even if you say ban the collection without signing a waver, people will still sign the waver since they will be forced to to receive healthcare so a law banning the sale is still required.
Forgetting past health treatments is a recipe for feeding addiction, incorrect diagnosis, accidental overdoses, incorrect prescriptions, etc. Modern medical diagnosis will simply not function without recording the results of the several people involved.
This. Also on a more personal level. I migrated from Australia to the UK and started with a blank slate on the NHS, I wish I could have signed a form that said "yes Medicare (Australia) please share my medical history with the (UK) National Health Service".
What I (or anyone else with half a brain) wants is for private organisations to be selling our medical data to all and sundry. Come to think of it, nor public organisations (though, they're better controlled than private ones).
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I find the location history aspect of Google Maps (timeline) indispensable. I share my location with my wife and she with me for safety reasons and because it is very convenient to know where the other person is. I trust my wife with this information but I wouldn't necessarily want that information to be sold to anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Hit Google Maps: Google Maps uses your GPS data to propose an itinerary. Possibly records your GPS data during the itinerary so it shows a breadcrumb trail or fine-tune the itinerary based on your past speed. That's using the information.
When Google Maps retains the information after the itinerary is over, that's recording. They'd either do it to fine-tune their algorithms later (yeah right...) or more likely to sell the data with your identity tacked on. Because other than that, they'd have no reason to re
Start by enacting the GDPR (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the basis of protection of personal data in Europe. It stops a lot of bad exploitation of personal data.
It would also make life much easier for corporations if they had to work with the same rules in the USA and Europe.
Re:Start by enacting the GDPR (Score:4, Informative)
Well, Europe is not in flames or completely economically destroyed as result of the GDPR. But it is likely that some people make a little less money and in the US, that is a big no-no.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe European companies make more money, because people are more willing to trust them with personal information since the law prevents them from selling it and otherwise abusing it without consent.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe European companies make more money, because people are more willing to trust them with personal information since the law prevents them from selling it and otherwise abusing it without consent.
That is actually a possibility. I have no numbers and they would probably not be comparable anyways. But it is nice that you can here, for example, hand out your phone number to a vendor and they a) do not call you except if there really is an issue and b) do not sell your number either.
Re: (Score:2)
Large corporations love heavy handed government regulations. They require lots of expensive lawyers, thus keeping small companies that cannot afford all those lawyers from competing and taking market share.
Re: (Score:2)
This bill won't pass (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill won't be allowed to pass.
Police routinely buy warrantless location data from brokers - one of those fun tricks that erodes our civil liberties. And the police lobby always vigorously opposes any bill that reduces or limits their power.
As much as we might want this bill - don't get your hopes up.
Re: (Score:2)
This bill won't be allowed to pass.
Police routinely buy warrantless location data from brokers - one of those fun tricks that erodes our civil liberties. And the police lobby always vigorously opposes any bill that reduces or limits their power.
As much as we might want this bill - don't get your hopes up.
You're dreaming if you think Warren is doing anything that will limit the police's ability to spy on you.
Re: (Score:3)
There's an explicit carve-out to allow law enforcement access to private data.
Note that the law doesn't ban the collection of private health and location data, just selling it. And it explicitly allows companies to give access to the government.
I'm not entirely clear how that squares with the stated goal of preventing law enforcement from getting access to location information to punish people who illegal get abortions, but you'd have to ask Warren that.
Re: (Score:2)
This bill won't be allowed to pass.
Police routinely buy warrantless location data from brokers - one of those fun tricks that erodes our civil liberties. And the police lobby always vigorously opposes any bill that reduces or limits their power.
As much as we might want this bill - don't get your hopes up.
On the other hand, big tech (FAANG, basically) will likely lobby in favor of this bill. They mostly don't sell data anyway, because they have the people and the systems that make them better able to monetize the data by selling services that make use of data rather than by selling data. So banning the sale of data would destroy a lot of their bottom-feeding competition, forcing a lot of the customers of those competitors to come buy services from big tech, since they'll no longer be able to get the data the
Disingenuous (Score:2)
The bill would bar "data brokers from selling or transferring location data and health data."
How about applying it to government?
The government should be prohibited from purchasing, selling or transferring this data without a warrant.
FOIA requests can not be denied for information on government data transfers of Americans' personal data
Data brokers should not have health data
Americans should be able to compel data brokers to delete all data associated with them
Nice, but it's DOA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
News at 10. Anonymous Coward really believes that crap. Must be legit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does keeping your data private and prevented from being sold hating America?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not exactly "greed is good", is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives and Libertarians will find a way to dislike the legislation. Their corporate sponsors will tell them what to think.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Republicans, Democrats, they all secretly love people like Elizabeth Warren - it means a lot of extra lobbying money for them.
Re: (Score:2)
cuse murika?
Re:Warren (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Business" did something easier.
They simply bought the politicians who make the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
please re-read, or read, the pilocrap that is HIPAA before disparaging it correctly.
HIPAA: Privacy with some corporate garbage (Score:3)
My wife is a provider in private practice, and I support her "I.T." work technically. (Day job: embedded data acquisition/control)
HIPAA does does require her to ensure that private patient data secure. The expensive record keeping is for damn sure a fucking corporate plan though. It has been a gift to fuckers who "provide EHS" and their product is extremely expensive. HIPAA has a very serious requirements/specification/design bug that may be a product of the intense lobbying by business groups: It does not
Re: (Score:2)
little things amuse little minds.
Exactly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
conservatives have no valid thoughts of their own. they just make up sentences and are proud of doing that.
Did you think that up all on your own? You must be proud.
What you just did there was an example of making noise professing how closed-minded you are being. It makes me root for those "conservatives" you try to villify. But maybe that's the best you can do, eh.
Here is a novel idea: Try to be a little less impolite and prejudiced. You might see the favour returned one day.
Here's a novel idea, why don't you let your intellectual light shine in public instead of hiding behind a rock? What are you ashamed of?
Re: (Score:2)
But because people like you are not capable of thinking in anything else but false dichotomy (black and white) terms, anyone who seemingly criticizes "your side" in any way, no matter how legitimate, must be supporting the craziest crazies of "other side".
Alternative Logic at its finest.
Re:You realize the left are deranged and dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
For reference I live in Germany, we have six different political parties in our parliament. I don't like a single one of them.
And while all of them do have some valid points here and there, they also have some ideological lunacy that deserves criticism. In fact there must be both scrutiny and accountability for democracy to work properly. So if one "side" is criticized and that criticism is met with a deflection especially to something unrelated, that's a pretty good sign of the of fanatically taking up a single side.
So for example when it comes to privacy related issues, like the one the original topic here talks about, you can be damned sure that I'm against those who want to destroy privacy regardless of what political party they come from.
Having lived in neo-Stalinist Romania where surveillance was ubiquitous and could have you never to be found again, I've got enough historic precedent to convince me that erosion of privacy is in fact a legitimate slippery slope, where you can only hope that those in charge don't write insane legislation that criminalizes activities where no one is hurt, like overturning Roe vs Wade, which is not based in fact but mostly in religious belief.
So now people could be tried for murder if they had a miscarriage? The could be charged with attempted murder or whatever other felony if their health data shows they take contraceptives?
It's infringement of privacy and bodily autonomy. It's utter lunacy, and it would still be lunacy if the Democrats came up with it, or anyone else for that matter.
For example there's a subset of self-ascribed Libertarian who are also "Pro-Life". And to make that cognitive dissonance work out they must invent some kind of contrivance like the Right To Be Born, which is a right granted to a lump of cells based on "what could be" which in effect supersedes all the other rights of a full grown person "that factually is" , with a life, a job, a contribution to society, perhaps a very important position in the economy on which millions of people depend on.
So if it has to be that way, at least find a way to protect privacy.
And while I understand that "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is a popular mantra among the dimwits, you should understand that this can easily come back to bite you if the laws are allowed to change on irrational whims.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
For example there's a subset of self-ascribed Libertarian who are also "Pro-Life".
Please stop using the term pro-life. These people aren't pro-life. They are pro-birth, and they don't give a fuck what life gets given birth to.
Unwanted child born into abject poverty? Job done!
Unwanted child born from a rape victim? Job done!
Medically disabled child borne which could never sustain itself? Job done!
Medically unviable child risking the life of the mother? At least we tried, job done!
Mother and child die during birth for medically predicable reasons? At least we tried, job done!
None of these
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise no objections there. Especially the last part.
An abortion can be a life saving medical procedure in cases where the pregnancy would otherwise kill the supposed mother.
There it's really not much of a "choice" even but becomes a necessity if supposed mother is not to be killed (by the fetus if you will). Well, I suppose one can choose to wait and see while ignoring medical science. But it's certainly not something people should have to be forced to do under threat of criminal
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/k... [forbes.com]
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
https://www.cnet.com/health/me... [cnet.com]
As far as deflection goes, while the article isn't explicitly about Roe vs Wade, that term it is mentioned in the text for whatever reason (maybe for deflective purposes as I can't speak for the intentions of the authors there).
Also while Roe vs Wade does not specifically target contraception, it has bolstered
Re: You realize the left are deranged and dangerou (Score:3)
They're not abortion clinics, they're angel factories.
Re: (Score:2)
You know who calls her "Pocahontas", right?
... Jabba the Trump.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Everyone that doesn't call her Lieawatha ?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I call her 'Granny Warren'. And I get some flak for being disrespectful.
Yes I am. I do not respect her. Her record, her own statements inspire this in me. She lies about her heritage to gain unfair advantage in employment, in a way that would get me fired, and get a high school principal dismissed for cause, in many places in America. She took a lot of money to teach very little in that employment. And her teaching has been described, by actual students, as not merely of poor quality, but her behavior and d
Re: (Score:2)
The supreme court ruled that protesting outside the homes of abortion doctors was free speech. When people started to protest outside the homes of supreme court justices the republicans had a shit fit and wanted to craft a new law making it illegal.
Double standards much?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, like the freedom to threaten law enforcement in Idaho for cracking down on some jokers planning a right wingnut riot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, look, it's the "both sides" guy here to remind us that even the brain dead can post to slashdot.
Sure, because just the the Democrats who are taking lobbyist bribes to support this crap are a colossal bunch of hypocrites, but obviously the Republicans taking lobbyist bribes to support this crap are beacons of morality who walk with god.