“We can shoot unarmed black people without reason, but we have to give them medical treatment afterward” is the good in this case?
In any event, I already said this, up there ☝️
KevinC
1805
How about “the state should pay for medical care in the case of police shooting”. Yeah, it ignores the elephant in the room and it doesn’t address the problem, but if that’s all we could compromise on in 2023 I would take it – while never taking my eye off the ball when it comes to the core issue.
How about a law in which we hold a lottery and award health care to one single pregnant woman each year, and to one single police shooting victim each year? It’s still an unalloyed good, isn’t it? We should be for it, not criticize it?
Those would all be bad proposals that I would not support, unlike the linked proposal that we are discussing which includes none of that.
I honestly feel like there’s two different discussions going on in this thread. There’s one group of posters trying to have a discussion on the impacts of the policy if implemented as proposed, and another group that seems to feel that any non-evil proposal must be a smokescreen for future planned evil by these moustache twirling villains.
Josh is responding to an argument that the bill as proposed is an unalloyed good because it helps some people. His questions are a perfectly reasonable response to that argument, and I don’t think your response really addresses that context.
Timex
1809
I haven’t dug into the details here, is there anything in this thing that makes anything worse for women than they have it now?
No, i don’t think so, though it’s a white paper rather than a bill, so the devil will be in the details if it ever gets to the bill stage.
I was quite aware of that and that’s what I was trying to discuss. I honestly don’t think there’s disagreement in this thread, just people having different discussions and assuming the wrong context in their replies. But whatever, I’m not trying to threadcop so people can do their thing.
I still think the proposal, as written, is completely fine and quite a good idea. I also completely understand a huge degree of suspicion as to the motivations and honesty of the parties proposing it so I’m totally on-board with anyone who wants to take the position that this will never be implemented as proposed without some super evil poison pills sneaking their way in to the legislation.
To be clear, I don’t think it’s a poison pill in waiting. I think it’s being offered as an implicit bargain: accept a status quo regime of no abortions in return for a promise to take good care of women when they are pregnant and of women and babies for two years afterward.
Noted, but it doesn’t detract from my point. There’s two discussions here. One is about the proposal-as-written and the other is about the proposal as people think it would be implemented in the larger context of the current abortion debate in the US.
Or rather, the proposal as written, in a vacuum VS the proposal, as written, with the weight of four decades of bad actors in one side.
Vesper
1818
TST getting themselves declared officially a religion may be the single thing that saves this country.
I love The Satanic Temple. They’re weaponizing the first amendment, just like the gun people (literally) weaponize the 2nd amendment.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the law or the constitution ultimately matters to conservatives. They’ll just ignore it and do what they want to anyway, because fuck you and what are you gonna do about it?
I’d like to report shots fired.
Menzo
1822
Certainly Alito and Thomas aren’t going to vote for anything the Satanic Temple wants no matter what the principle is. They will find a way.
