I donât get a lot of this⌠but one thing that particularly befuddles me, is that the only way this succeeds - states legislating - is if women vote in favour of these draconian laws.
If a state is 60% red, then it stands to reason that half of those supporters are women. If the women rebel on this issue, red team loses and loses very very badly.
Are American voting practices so rusted on that they wonât change for single issues?
Alternatively, would this trigger migration away from these states? Given the current economic climate I assume there is lots of work around the place - would people pack up and move from red state to blue state?
It seriously bothers me that taking something out of law and giving it back to the people impacted, that people choose to seriously f*ck themselves over.
I think the problem is that while I think this is batshit crazy, and this has pushed me from Atheist to Anti-Christian, I think most Americans really just donât care.
Considering that abortions are way down in the US, at 11.4 per 1000 women (as of 2019) this only effects about 1% of women. So even if Republican women might not like the change, since they are unlikely to ever need an abortion, and maybe even know anyone who will need one, they are not going to suddenly move left of center on this one issue.
Thatâs very insightful, thanks!
Is that rate annual? I suppose it also might not include some of the chemical abortions or does it?
So yeah, very Low %, and then another subset of that whom experience terrible outcomes - I can see how it might not move peopleâŚ
I assume so, I was looking it up the other day and it was from this Pew Research piece I found.
I was in DC over the weekend, just got back a couple hours ago, and we saw protesters coming back from protests, but DC was not overrun with protests this weekend. Although I suspect some large ones are being planned now for the near future.
Work is broadly available, but housing is not. Iâm not sure how those balance; it might be as hard to move as ever. But itâs presumably much worse if thereâs a nervous wife and a red-aligned husband. Thatâs the only case which makes me think concrete thoughts along the âitâs about controlling womenâ line. Mostly, I can comfortably take pro-life folksâ claims to be concerned about murder of the most vulnerable as sincere, which makes the search for alternative explanations feel unnecessary. But itâs deeply uncomfortable thinking about family dynamics caused by a party which explicitly appeals more to men, especially in conjunction with any of a variety of other facts (imagine a family in which thereâs a very smart wife, or a conflict between allocating funds to community college vs. a new truck, or a gun collector, etc.).
Well, yes, American voting practices are extremely rooted in party loyalty. There are only two parties, and theyâve become more ideologically different/opposed than ever, so itâs an âus vs. themâ mentality for a lot of voters, and the politicians fuel that. Politicians from different parties who cooperate with each other on legislation are usually painted as weak by members of their own parties. So that doesnât happen very often and as a result, very little gets done.
That aside, to respond to your first question, the system is also somewhat broken in the sense that Supreme Court justices are not elected by the people, theyâre chosen and approved by politicians. So there is always a partisan motive for putting certain judges on the court. And once the Supreme Court rules on an issue at the national level, the governors of various states can then act on it more or less without any oversight.
So at no point do voters get a direct say in whether they should have access to abortion services in their state. No matter oneâs feelings about the issue, that seems wrong to me.
Will people move from a red to a blue state? Very few would do that. Americans are mostly apathetic. They say a lot of things but do very little. The most noticeable state migration of recent times happened/is happening with people leaving California because they canât afford to live there. Not just service-level workers, but doctors, teachers, and essential responders. No one can afford a house or to raise a family, so people have left in droves. That had nothing to do with politics, though lots of CA folks descending on places like Idaho as a destination to live has certainly stirred up resentment in conservative states.
My understanding of it has been people travel for abortions to other states without issue, up until now, where it has become a problem again and is now rife with new dangers, geofence warrants, IMSI catchers and other such means of gathering data that do not discern why someone is there. Period tracker apps and other such programs are also of course a problem now and should be ditched ASAP.
The video shows that 3 minutes after the gunman enters the school police officers in body armor arrive. I count 3 of the initial 4 officers down the corridor with rifles and I think all had body armor. There are an additional 4 or 5 officers that I can see that remain back. This was disgraceful.
Granted the edited video mentions that around 100 rounds were already fired and a lot of kids were dead but how many bled out that could of been saved? How many were shot after they retreated?
When you think the interviewer is on your side.
Chilmark Director: âNot one single person has contacted me to complain that they havenât had a chance to hear Alan speak.â*
Alan makes so many assumptions about what is going on, and the interviewer is having none of it.
First they come for the library speeches, and then eventually itâs the Hebrew Center.
Spat my drink out.
Urban unrest is currently high on the priority list for many militaries, with doubtful outcomes when soliders are faced with locals from their own country/state/city they empathise with. The cute dog robots have a solution.