ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,261 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:
This is nothing more than an attack on poor women. Trump's people care about a fetus? Ya right. They don't care a fig for the constitution but want to save the unborn? No, this is just a way of hurting people
There are proven ways to reduce the numbers of abortions, but "pro-life" advocates generally oppose them in favor of banning abortion. Truly pro-life would be advocating for pro-natalist policies (which would likely find decent bipartisan support).
Banning abortion will not end abortions, it'll just make them less safe.
Hard to argue that cruelty isn't the point.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, muppy said:
wow up to 26 states laws could be affected by this decision wether it be immediately, near future or conceivably change their laws and straight up outlaw abortions.
Is Abortion Illegal? Your Rights in Every State as Roe v. Wade Overturned (msn.com) the link won't embed.
Here is an article outlining it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/
13 states with trigger laws will ban abortion shortly.
5 states likely will ban abortion soon
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, NyQuil said:
Also I’m expecting new clinics to open in blue states that border red states right on the state line.
Illinois is already prepping to service the midwest and Texas.
Just another example of blue states subsidizing red states.
-
5 minutes ago, B-Man said:
A D&C , A dilation and curettage procedure is used to scrape out the remaining tissue from a spontaneous miscarriage. NOT AN ABORTION
This has nothing to do with it.
See how this works ?
Goose types out a false reaction to today's ruling and now I have to point it out repeatedly.
14 minutes ago, T&C said:Is a miscarriage really an abortion though... nothing is being aborted, the child has passed away inside the mothers body and rightfully so should be removed for the mothers health. Sorry you all had to go through that... my Mom did twice when I was younger.
As someone who has had to unfortunately become intimately familiar with all of this over the last couple of years, I am going to try to spell this out as clearly as I can.
Medically, there is little difference between an abortion and treatment for a miscarriage. Depending on how far along, it might be a pill or a shot like methotrexate, or it might be D&C or D&E. In fact, when you have severe bleeding in a pregnancy and go to the ER only to find everything is still fine, your paperwork will read "threatened abortion." A miscarriage is labeled "spontaneous abortion." When you have a miscarriage, doctors generally suggest one of these methods because the other option is to wait and hope the body expels the fetus and tissue. This risks the mother going septic and potentially dying. A simple procedure is preferable to that risk.
Legally, it all depends on how the laws are written. Under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the law required an exception for the life or health of the mother. So someone who is pregnant but the fetus dies or stops developing is able to get the proper care because without it, they could go septic.
Now that Roe and Casey are overturned, there is no such requirement nationally. States can absolutely enact full abortion bans with no exceptions. This will mean that doctors may not be able to provide treatment for miscarriages until the mother starts suffering from something like sepsis. Or they may make the law vague enough that doctors are unsure of what they can or cannot do, and side on the edge of caution and reject treatment. We've already seen this in Texas since their new abortion law was enacted. Depending on how the laws are written, it may make providing abortion care so difficult and risky, the abortion providers just shut down, leaving people with few to no options.
The immediate pushback to this is that states won't pass those kinds of laws. I would love for that to be the case. But like I said, we've already seen doctors in Texas unsure if they can provide care in certain instances of miscarriage. Also, we've seen idiotic attempts like a proposed law in Ohio that would require ectopic pregnancies (pregnancies in the fallopian tube that can cause a rupture and kill the mother are treated with an abortion) to be re-implanted, a procedure that does not exist. Thankfully, that did not pass. But we also see in countries with very strict abortion laws that women die from miscarriage because they cannot get the proper treatment. With today's decision, there is absolutely nothing stopping states from passing similar laws.
So when I said that I am happy I live in Illinois, it's because we have laws here that protect my wife and if we lost another pregnancy, she would have no problem getting the help she needs. Soon, women in many states will likely not have that safety.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, T&C said:
Why so?
1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage and the proper treatment for a miscarriage is an abortion.
My wife has had several miscarriages and it was easy to get her the care she needed.
Without Roe and Casey, there is nothing stopping a state from banning abortions outright, with no exceptions. People in Poland are dying because of their abortion ban today.
-
1
-
-
Up next:
Contraceptives
Same Sex Marriage
Same Sex Relationships
-
1
-
1
-
-
Thank god I live in Illinois. This is going to be so awful for so many people.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:
Oh I'm well schooled in history unlike the subhuman cretins upthread who simply copy-and-paste from disinformation outlets.
Fascism usually starts with the invoking of a folk myth ("the election was stolen!" - check) as a justification for suspension of law and, ultimately, the use of force. As a political ethos it requires a demonized enemy of the state ("you [liberal] morons"), and is characterized by protectionist economic policies (MAGA - check!) and a militarized state which relies on fear and armed groups of loyalists to instill loyalty and order (CHECK).
And it's coming.
It’s also telling that we frequently see “otherizing” by people on this board supporting the Trump side.
The Left is deranged
Liberals are Commies
Enemy of the people.
It’s this kind of language that dehumanizes the other side, giving permission to dismiss them and often leads to violence.While those with more left positions certainly talk crap about GOP officials and public figures, you do not see nearly as much vitriol directed at other regular Americans.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, DRsGhost said:
I love it how you idiots think I'm a Trump guy.
If it's one thing I hate, its that you morons suffer from TDS so badly that you actually make me defend the orange, blowhard, narcissistic a-hole.
And that's a rich accusation coming from a dickwad who worships at the altar of the corrupt DC swamp rats on this committee day after day.
Open wide and swallow your daily load son.
Nice dodge.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, DRsGhost said:
Reading comprehension dude.
The memo and the exact timeline of the denials you were not aware of.
Has the committee shared that the Trump administration formally asked for up to 20k national guard troops in the days before J6 and the request was denied on multiple fronts?
Why hasnt the committee in search of truth shared that information? They certainly must have had access to the very same memo.
Gee, I wonder why they wouldn't share information that is exculpatory.....that's a tough one!
Ok, let's say that you're correct. Frankly, I don't have the time or patience to chase down everything posted on RedStateThisIsRealNewsBenShapiroFederalistWeThinkOurReadersAreIdiotsAndWeAreScammingThemForProfitDotCom, but let's say you're right: Trump asked for more security and it was denied by Nancy Pelosi, the Deep State, Democratic Socialist Liz Cheney, the reverse vampires, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and all of those people who eat babies.
How is that exculpatory for the recorded phone call where Trump commits a crime?
-
1
-
-
Just now, DRsGhost said:
Also denied by DC mayor. She has her job still.
Seems like this is pretty relevant to the happenings of J6, no? Why did we not hear about this from the committee? We know Patels testimony highlighted this grave error. Yet they haven't shared it, nor will they. Why did it take someone on a Bills message board to link to a 2 week old story for you to be made aware of the timeline of this massive failure?
Because this committee is interested in telling you A story, not THE story. It's all politics. Every last bit of it.
Wait, you think I wasn't aware that they did not have the proper security for Jan 6th?
It was clear that the decision was made that they didn't need the kind of force that they had for the riots after George Floyd's death. And it was clear that the people who made that decision were wrong. And of the three people on the board that oversees the Capitol Police, two of them lost their jobs the next day.
None of this is new.
-
17 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Reeks of you having zero principles. And being a coward. Those two traits go hand in glove.
Again the memo reported on here is linked to in the actual story. You know like real journalists do.
@DRsGhost is so incompetent that his big "gotcha" that negates the fact that we have a recording of Trump literally committing crimes is that two people rejected help prior to Jan 6th and then were fired the next day.
Now we just need several balls of red twine and a carton of thumbtacks to prove that this was all a big deep state conspiracy and our God King Trump was framed.
-
2 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
Ladies and gentlemen it's looking we've moved into the next phase. The "oh yeah he did it but he had every reason to" phase. We'll be hearing all the splendid justifications and accusations that the left did the same for the next few weeks (or decades).
On another note. Can't wait to find out why all these people asked Trump for pardons!
Pretty sure you only ask for pardons when you never did anything wrong and were totally in the right. Yep, that's probably it.
-
7 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Care to comment coward?
According to this article, the request was denied by the House and Senate Seargant at Arms:
Quote"COP Sund asks Senate Sergeant at Arms (SSAA) Michael Stenger and House Sergeant at Arms (HSAA) Paul Irving for authority to have National Guard to assist with security for the January 6, 2021 event based on briefing with law enforcement partner and revised intelligence Assessment," the timeline recorded. "COP Sund's request is denied. SSAA and HSAA tell COP Sund to contact General Walker at DC National Guard to discuss the guard's ability to support a request if needed."
Considering that both of them lost their jobs the very next day, it would seem they royally screwed up and got what they deserved.
-
2 minutes ago, 716er said:
Is Patel your boyfriend or something?
Patel is a grifter, so he targets the easiest marks that most grifters target: diehard Trump supporters. Tell them what they want to hear and then sell them a book or some vitamin pills or whatever.
He's not as good as Trump though, who can just ask for money for a defense fund that doesn't exist and they'll give him $250 million. But you gotta start somewhere!
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Yep. Coward.
Reeks of the pathetic "debate me" garbage of the Ben Shapiro types. What a joke.
-
21 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Let's make a bet right now.
If they release all of Kash Patels testimony, IN FULL, by the end of September I will leave here forever. I will personally PM SDS and ask him to delete my account.
If they don't release his testimony, iN FULL, by the end of September you will do the same.
Deal?
Or are you the coward that I know that you are?
The problem is that even if they release it in full, Patel will likely claim that it's doctored. Nor do I have any trust that you, someone who has yet to have an original thought, would be trustworthy enough to actually follow through on this.
But if they do not release Patel's testimony, I will change my icon to a picture to one of Tom Brady for a full year. I do not require any action on your part.
-
2 hours ago, DRsGhost said:
Kash Patel did. I noticed you excluded him from your list of those who testified. And he wants his testimony released. In full. Since you've been watching this sham in its entirety to provide us with updates, why don't you tell us how much of Kash Patels testimony, who was a key government player involved in providing security on J6, has been shared by this committee?
I don't need to watch any of it to tell everyone it's been zero, zip, zilch, nada.
You're a moron.
I didn't include Patel as someone whose testimony we've seen because we have not seen it. I know that comprehension is difficult for you, but maybe give it a shot some time. Also, it's already been noted that the committee plans to release all of the transcripts in September. Patel is just grandstanding because he knows that gullible people will believe there's some bombshell the committee is hiding. He is hoping that the same people who are easy marks for obvious grifting will also swallow the unbelievable line that all of the Trump employees, campaign workers, appointees, and supporters who are testifying under oath are partisan hacks.
If you did watch the hearings, you would have heard Donald Trump on tape committing a crime. You also would have heard sworn testimony that he was taking actions that he had been informed multiple times were illegal. But your ignorance is your bliss, and you must be incredibly blissful.
You're a barely literate troll and I feel bad for anyone who thinks you've ever contributed anything of merit to any discussion.
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
You're lost dude. I'd call it a sham if it was an all republican committee with a Manchin like dem or two thrown in. I suspect you would as well in that case. You've been bamboozled. Willingly, it seems
I know that @DRsGhostis simply a troll with a skull so thick that no facts could possibly hope to penetrate it, but in case anyone else reads their statement and thinks they might be making a point, I would look at the witnesses who have testified under oath versus the witnesses that have been called to testify under oath but refuse. The answer lies in those two lists.
-
12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Again…good points…but the remedy is to recall a board member or in the case of the superintendent of schools (the executive branch) is to fire him/her….which is the result in the case of the 2020 election. Congress certified the results and Biden is the President.
It is clear that we cannot rely on presidential impeachments as an enforcement mechanism since they just devolve into partisan squabbling, and I do not believe there is a law on the books that directly addresses this issue of a president acting with unlawful intent to overturn an election. A legislative remedy for this would be a good idea to come from the committee when they get to that point.
All of that being said, under current law, you could definitely build a case on 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to defraud the United States) against Eastman, Giuliani, and Trump from the evidence we've seen. I do not know if that will happen, or if it would lead to a conviction if there was an indictment, but yesterday's raid on Jeff Clark's home combined with what I've seen so far from today's testimony makes me think it's not off the table.
-
7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Good question. As I said it’s only somewhat analogous because being a Board they have to vote in the majority before taking any action. If you look at a School Board agenda it includes a Consent Agenda and Action Agenda. The specific analogy I think you’re asking about is what happens if a single board member attempts to convince District staff not to listen to Counsel, but unilaterally take action. Once again, nobody goes to jail. That Board member is simply told to ‘knock it off’.
Yeah, I think this is where the analogy breaks down a bit, but I wanted to illustrate that what we have seen is different from a spit-balling meeting. Executive privilege exists for a reason and the president and his advisors absolutely should be free to throw out crazy scenarios as part of a discussion without fear of repercussions.
But what we are seeing here is that the president was told repeatedly that a course of action he wished to take was illegal, and yet he and a handful of people (who also knew it was illegal) still pursued those actions anyway. They took actions to further a scheme that they had been repeatedly informed was illegal. And I think that is different from just tossing ideas around.
-
1 hour ago, DRsGhost said:
Recap:
More lies and narrative building.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Yes, this is exactly what Trump's people are doing. Thank you for calling it out.
-
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:
"You may not follow the internet the way I do."
Ha ha ha!
I do not miss having a president who was suffering from severe Very Online Brain syndrome.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Doc said:
Say a guy goes around the Capitol for 2 days saying "we gotta break into the Capitol," is there when people do break into the Capitol, I'd say that's a crime. But according to the J6 committee, specifically Adam Kinzinger, merely telling people to do something isn't a crime, much less when they don't actually do it.
I am not referencing the people on the capitol grounds. I am referencing the plans to have dual electors and to have Mike Pence pick the winner of the election.
-
2
-
Roe vs Wade Overturned
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Well for one, because one would hope that women would have access to proper healthcare regardless of which state they were in.
And for another, states like mine are now going to have to provide services to people from other states, in effect subsidizing them.
Decisions in some states can have impacts on people in other states.