SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the elections-have-long-term-consequences dept.
Covered pretty much everywhere (front page of CNN/FOX/younameit).
With the main swing vote in the U.S. Supreme Court leaving, and a replacement nominated by President Trump, the right wing of the court should become clearly dominant, allowing Roe v. Wade opponents, and other right-wing causes, a new chance at victory.
takyon: SCOTUSblog has a round-up of coverage:
Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement today, effective July 31, 2018. Amy Howe covered the news for this blog; her coverage first appeared at Howe on the Court. Other early coverage comes from Richard Wolf of USA Today, Michael D. Shear of The New York Times; Bill Mears of Fox News; Robert Barnes of The Washington Post; Jessica Mason Pieklo of Rewire.News; Nina Totenberg of NPR; Lawrence Hurley of Reuters; Greg Stohr of Bloomberg; and Pete Williams of NBC News. Analysis of Justice Kennedy's legacy comes from Noah Feldman of Bloomberg; Wolf of USA Today; Mears of Fox News; and Reuters staff. Coverage of the reaction from Congress and the President comes from Carl Hulse of The New York Times; Alex Pappas and Mears of Fox News; Seung Min Kim and Josh Dawsey of The Washington Post; and Alex Seitz-Wald and Rebecca Shabad of NBC News. Patrick Gregory of Bloomberg has a piece looking at potential replacements for Kennedy.
Early commentary comes from Jill Lawrence for USA Today; Bill Blum in The Progressive; Emily Bazelon for The New York Times; Elizabeth Slattery for The Daily Signal; Garrett Epps for The Atlantic; Richard Hasen for Slate; Ian Millhiser of Think Progress; and Joshua Matz for The Washington Post. Another piece in the Post comes from Philip Bump, who focuses on control of the Senate. More commentary comes from Scott Lemieux for NBC News and Matt Ford for The New Republic. Andrew Cohen writes for TNR, and he also has a piece in Rolling Stone. Commentary from Vox comes from Dylan Matthews, Andrew Prokop and Matt Yglesias. Pieklo and Imani Gandy released an emergency podcast reacting to the news. Various law professors give their analysis for Stanford Law School Blog.
Anthony Kennedy was sworn in on February 18, 1988.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:06AM (8 children)
So, basically, you are in favor of back-street abortions?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:40AM (7 children)
Based on my post I don't care as long as I don't have to pay for it. After having several kids and watching them on ultrasounds I know I personally would never murder a kid, but if others want to do that then its on them. I wont tell them they can't do it and they can't tell me to pay for it. Making women see that the thing inside of them is living (as some states require) also seems pointless to me. If private insurance companies want to cover it because thats what their morals dictate then thats fine, I just wont do business with them because I wont subsidize it being done.
I think RvW is a unacceptable restriction on the right of women to kill their child at any point up to pregnancy and would accept repeal even if it meant a kid could be aborted same day as the birth would have happened. Although I suppose a restriction may be needed if it came out naturally first because it could mess with homicide laws.
This would give women ultimate control over their body without imposing on the rights of others who don't want to be compelled to participate in the act.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:03AM (2 children)
Sulla, you basket case republican! I hope you are in a serious accident, and find yourself in a hospital, and need lots of blood transfusions. Fine, as long as I don't have to pay for it! Especially the blood that I donated so that dangerous drivers like you might not die! Of course, the Blood Bank does charge, and your insurance, which I also paid for (you do understand the principle of distributed risk? No? Not smart enough to understand that you could never, ever, afford to pay for , your own medical care, when you need it, but the rest of us have got you covered?) Now, why cannot you see that this applies to other medical procedures? I hope you bleed out, before I have to pay to save your sorry ass.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:12AM (1 child)
Thats the point. I presume a Jehova's Witness would be interested in purchasing insurance that did not cover blood transfusions or transplants, as they will never need them.
A distributed risk model is great, and there is no reason to not have choices of the ones you want to participate in. Insurance company A covers abortion, insurance company B does not. 50% of the population would be just fine with insurance company A, and the other 50% with B. They were each able to purchase insurance and participate in a system that does not infringe on their morals.
Also, you are volunteering to donate your blood, knowing the risks people take with their own. You could choose not to. What you say would be a different thing completely if you were being compelled to donate your blood.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 28 2018, @07:19AM
Oh, they might need them, but not want them, due to their totally crazy interpretation of scripture as prohibiting the eating of blood, and not realizing that a transfusion does not go throught your Goddamned digestive tract. But they can just ferping die. Their kids, however, and not competent to make such a totally insane interpretation of the religion they are accidently born into. It is much like being a Republican in Alaska, sometimes society has to make decisions for you, since you have be brainwashed, or grew up in MaTsu.
I choose to donate blood. You owe me your life, Sulla. Show some fucking gratitude! Or, you could be like a story I heard from a fellow philosopher. They were studying in France when the Germans arrived, she wore blue, the Germans wore grey. But since she was Jewish, she was put into a Frent-stalag. I don't now if being an American saved her, but she stayed there until the Allies arrived. During the battle around the camp, some wounded soldiers were brought in, and she was blood-typed to one who needed a transfusion. They hooked her up. The young Nazi regained consciousness, looked at the IV in his arm, followed it to our philosophy student, looked at her, and said: "Are you a Jew?" She told the truth, and the Nazi pulled the IV out of his arm, and died. Good riddance, I say, and she should have punched him in the face for good measure before he passed, but this philosopher was bothered for the rest of her life, always asking herself whether she should have lied, to save her enemies life. This is the kind of morality that I fear escapes you, Sulla. And I request that you meditate upon it, for at least a few moments.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:25AM (1 child)
It's interesting how proud you are of your ignorance.
The Hyde Amendment (The law since 1994) [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:54AM
I always found it odd that the democrats did not repeal the hyde amendment when they had the chance to, they had full control over the legislature and the presidency yet they did not find it important to remove.
So what health plans cover abortion?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/khn.org/news/determining-whether-a-marketplace-plan-covers-abortion-is-still-difficult/amp/ [google.com]
It seems some states do not permit marketplace plans from providing abortions, to me this is illegal. The marketplace is supposed to be a series of private companies that get subsidized by the government? So the check that was in place was that the subsidy could not pay for an abortion, but companies that want to provide it can still work it into their business model and just not pass those costs onto the fed. The laws restricting what marketplaces can cover at the state level seem unconstitutional to me, but the hyde amendment specifically is not.
Looks like while some plans do cover it, there are not many that do. Sounds like a good PR campaign for a multi-state provider trying to corner a market that is okay covering them.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:55PM (1 child)
I merely want to point out that paying for it might be far cheaper than NOT paying for it.
By having more and more unwanted, poor, neglected, and probably uneducated people entering society you will ultimately pay far, far more. And some of that in ways far less obvious than the simple easily measurable payment you seek to avoid.
Maybe it would also be good if everyone helped pay for contraception and better sex education. That is probably much better and cheaper than abortions. And prevents the abortions in the first place.
What you say sounds a lot like people who have no kids that complain about paying property taxes to support schools. If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. You'll end paying far more than you think you are saving.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday June 29 2018, @04:32AM
He doesn't really care about paying for it.
It's all about control, and making sure poor people (and especially brown people) don't have control of their lives.