>To create the Every Mom Matters Act; To provide healthcare support to pregnant women in Arkansas; And to stabilize families and reduce the number of abortions performed in the state. And for other purposes.
Everyone who calls the hotline (per legal requirement) would be entered into the database. The hotline is in Texas, costs $175,000 to set up and $4.8 million to operate. Expected to be functional by 2023.
You don't have to agree with their axioms to understand how a small number of simple axioms lead to their beliefs, right?
The hard truth that few people talk about is that very few people believe in banning early abortions of unviable fetuses or in cases of rape, very few people believe in allowing elective abortions of viable fetuses in the 40th week, and it's hard to find an objective scientific line in the middle ground.
It's a problem requiring a very nuanced compromise in a society that has a very hard time with nuance, and as a result, is having a harder and harder time with compromise.
You don't need an objective scientific line; any sort policy being codified into law (in any context, not just abortion) will be subject to interpetation, exceptions, and context. Instead, you just need a reasonable compromise. And as far as reasonable compromises go, we had a quite good one until hours ago, when states began stripping our rights away.
It is possible to be against abortion for oneself while also supporting the rights of other people to make that decision themselves. Abortion is not a recreational drug that people take just to have a good time, it's a harrowing medical procedure that is unfortunately necessary.
I agree with you there. It's just the snarky tone of your higher up post seemed to indicate an over-simplified view of the anti-choice stance. I disagree with them, but they aren't necessarily stupid or insincere.
I hope so too, but hope isn't a sustainable solution. Even if the engineers building this quit in protest, how hard is it to find someone to put a web interface in front of a mySQL database?.
We need to encode privacy rights in law, and build systems which hold elected officials accountable for the results of their work.
If you're seeking an abortion, be careful not to communicate that fact using any service that stores data in one of the regressive states, lest the state government subpoena that service so that they can put you on a watchlist like this.
Better yet, treat the situation like you're assembling a bomb: Mullvad/Tor, Signal, DDG, clean phone/laptop if you can afford it. Adtech surveillance/tracking is extremely pervasive at this point and it's hard to be sure where data about you will end up.
More generally, once you realize your state is authoritarian, it might be too late to cover your tracks. Always protect your privacy, even when you think it'll be fine.
I wonder how long it'll be before organizations that provide abortion services to out of state women will be declared more or less terrorist organizations in red states and you'll get arrested for donating to them...
Stuff it full of 10% or higher people. They have daughters who go oops as much as any other and deserve the attention and excitement, especially if they make foreign trips.
They'll give a pregnant woman health care, but then at 2 yrs old they assume the baby can fend for itself, and no more health care.
Their bill is literally a George Carlin bit.
“Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months. After that, they don’t wanna know about you. They don’t wanna hear from you. No nothing! No neonatal care, no daycare, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.” - George Carlin
But we have all the stuff. Medical care is free to the poor. Housing is free to the poor. Food is free to the poor. School lunch was free to everyone the last few years and continued to be reduced or free to lower income.
The scope and breadth of federal, state and local programs in this country would is mind boggling.
I currently work at a former startup in this area and my wife works with low income families.
The poor don't get free housing. Homeless shelters do exists, largely subsidized by private charities, and there are way too few of them, and they are incredibly dangerous. For those who get Section 8 vouchers (after waiting for years), nobody will take them.
There is a good chunk of free food out there, but not in food deserts, which of course disproportionately affect poor minorities.
If medical care is free to the poor, why does everyone have to go to the emergency room, and why are firefighters acting like EMTs with big red trucks? Why are there so many physically and mentally ill people on the streets?
School lunches continue to be defunded (even this year, during a pandemic, during massive inflation) and not available enough in poor minority communities.
Yes, passed early last year and it goes into effect at the start of 2023.
I’m not a big fan of your implication that there’s something wrong with discussing legislation while it’s still pending, though. That’s honestly the best and most useful time for people to be discussing it.
> I’m not a big fan of your implication that there’s something wrong with discussing legislation while it’s still pending, though.
There is something wrong with it. Lots of bills get proposed all the time. Many die in committees or they have no hope of being passed, or they might be passed in one house but have no chance of getting passed in the other, making them little more than a symbolic gesture. It's important to understand the context before demanding everyone get all freaked out and outraged about something that might not have ever been even remotely possible.
Thanks for clarifying that it was passed, that's important and relevant information.
I don't think parent implied that at all. This is a global forum, there is no need for this forum to debate bills in a small corner of one country with little technology presence.
I think the events of this week should put an end to this line of argument, which claims that protecting gun rights will have a positive halo effect on all other human rights.
Why are we assuming this wouldn't have happened either way? It seems to me that the repeal of Roe v. Wade is the only precedent necessary. Given that abortion is illegal in Arkansas, the tracking of women seeking abortions is far less legally grey than the tracking of gun owners.
The premise of lawfare is that you enact laws and legal precedents primarily with intent of undermining your opponent, rather than to benefit anyone in particular. The American right just realized that they can do this too.
Please elaborate. From what I've seen, the right has done this a long time, be it dumbing down education, defunding social services, advocating for war to benefit their lobbyist friends, or restricting access to nature's bounty.
Punishment is in the eye of the beholder: the left and right don't care about the same issues, and that's the principle that makes it possible to hurt your opponent through lawfare without hurting yourself. Eliminating federal protections for abortions annoys the left without hurting the right. Conversely, banning religious services during covid while promoting protest gatherings bothered the right, but not the left. You wouldn't be able to list the lawfare issues that bothered the right, because that's the point. Lawfare is only lawfare to your opponent, not to yourself.
If you choose to ignore the example I just gave, that's on you, but luckily I can provide additional examples from the last few years:
- bans on legal ownership of certain types of firearms while simultaneously weakening firearms penalties for the primary types of gun violence: gang and drug crimes
- using lawsuits and legal harassment to shut down right leaning personalities, businesses, and institutions
- selective prosecution by activist DAs, depending on political alignment
Shall I list more? And, again, these are supposed to be things that you feel are justified, but the right does not, because that's the purpose of lawfare.
> Eliminating federal protections for abortions annoys the left without hurting the right
I have to assume you mean emotionally, not physically. Conservatives have women in their lives who will suffer and die from legal interference in the process of pregnancy and childbirth also.
Oh no! Now that the right has "just realized this", they might try to overturn the American Care Act primarily with intent of undermining their opponent, rather than to benefit anyone in particular.
Everyone who calls the hotline (per legal requirement) would be entered into the database. The hotline is in Texas, costs $175,000 to set up and $4.8 million to operate. Expected to be functional by 2023.
https://www.5newsonline.com/article/news/politics/arkansas-l...