ADVERTISEMENT

Support for Full term Abortion

And the kill-by-deregulation Party.

Black Lung is making an amazing comeback, a nastier form from inhaling silica dust. The right-to-life party relaxed air quality standards, knowing that to do so will kill thousands more people a year from respiratory illnesses. Same with water quality standards. 250 million tons of toxic fly ash generated every year. Kingston spill killed 30 with over 200 ill. I could go on and on...did you see what the Life Party has wrought in Florida?

FISH-KILL-580-31.jpg
Links required.
 
In the year 2018, everyone should just be on the page of guaranteeing easy access to free contraception. Between all the permanent options out there, it shouldn't be a large issue if it was made a national priority. Girls should just be given an implant or an IUD as part of normal healthcare in their teen years. I know some small % have reactions that make it untenable, and obviously wouldn't be mandatory (similar to vaccines), but the puritan stigma around sex needs to end. Newsflash....They are going to do it.

The remaining opponents from the religious right can't have it both ways.

Bring on more birth control for those that want it, but what do you mean by "remaining opponents from the religious right can't have it both ways."

The Religious Right lost the abstinence versus safe sex paradigm shift decades ago because of dwindling adherents, not because of stigma, and certainly not because an inevitable lack of self-restraint is a superior argument. With the prevalence of birth control and abortion today, is the Religious Right successfully opposing anything? Meanwhile, yes, boys are being boys and girls are being girls. Maybe Religious Righties should enlist Gillette's marketing team for help reviving their cause.

There has been a slow-burn of progressive nudging over the last 120 years from Teddy Roosevelt (eugenics), to Woodrow Wilson (forced sterilization), to Oliver Wendell Holmes (more sterilization), to Margaret Sanger (infanticide and birth control), to the 60's! (sexual revolution), to Roe v. Wade (viability), to radical feminism (phuk traditional family values) that has enabled current thinking and outcomes on sexual and reproductive ethics.

Sexual and reproductive norms now rest nicely between the legs of not religious and not right people. That we now have a host of wonderfully progressive outcomes to mitigate, treat, rationalize, or argue shouldn't be surprising. We reap what we sow and all that...
 
There has been a slow-burn of progressive nudging over the last 120 years from Teddy Roosevelt (eugenics), to Woodrow Wilson (forced sterilization), to Oliver Wendell Holmes (more sterilization), to Margaret Sanger (infanticide and birth control), to the 60's! (sexual revolution), to Roe v. Wade (viability), to radical feminism (phuk traditional family values) that has enabled current thinking and outcomes on sexual and reproductive ethics.
No shit...you forgot...to Donald "Family Values" Trump (grab 'em by the pussy)...
 
The Religious Right lost the abstinence versus safe sex paradigm shift decades ago because of dwindling adherents, not because of stigma, and certainly not because an inevitable lack of self-restraint is a superior argument.
That's not really true. When it comes to abstinence, there never really were a whole lot of adherents. People have been having sex before marriage since the country was founded. Before trustworthy birth control and abortion, the most common outcome was simply a wedding. During Revolutionary times, 30-40% of American women were pregnant when they married. As a result, "an inevitable lack of self-restraint," as you put it, absolutely is the superior argument.

If someone wants to argue that birth control is immoral, as the Catholic Church does, fine. They are free to do so. But pining for a mythical past during which good Americans had the common sense to keep their hands to themselves until they said their vows is just silly. That past never existed.
 
That's not really true. When it comes to abstinence, there never really were a whole lot of adherents. People have been having sex before marriage since the country was founded. Before trustworthy birth control and abortion, the most common outcome was simply a wedding. During Revolutionary times, 30-40% of American women were pregnant when they married. As a result, "an inevitable lack of self-restraint," as you put it, absolutely is the superior argument.

If someone wants to argue that birth control is immoral, as the Catholic Church does, fine. They are free to do so. But pining for a mythical past during which good Americans had the common sense to keep their hands to themselves until they said their vows is just silly. That past never existed.
Let's also not forget that the standard form of abortion in rural, conservative America before abortions were legal and available was the local dumpster. Then again, still is.
 
And the kill-by-deregulation Party.

Black Lung is making an amazing comeback, a nastier form from inhaling silica dust. The right-to-life party relaxed air quality standards, knowing that to do so will kill thousands more people a year from respiratory illnesses. Same with water quality standards. 250 million tons of toxic fly ash generated every year. Kingston spill killed 30 with over 200 ill. I could go on and on...did you see what the Life Party has wrought in Florida?

FISH-KILL-580-31.jpg
What air quality standards are you talking about? Respirable silica standards were recently lowered significantly. Those rules were fully implemented in 2017. Full enforcement went into effect in October of 2017. So again, what specifically are you referring to that the Republicans have done?
 
That's not really true. When it comes to abstinence, there never really were a whole lot of adherents. People have been having sex before marriage since the country was founded. Before trustworthy birth control and abortion, the most common outcome was simply a wedding. During Revolutionary times, 30-40% of American women were pregnant when they married. As a result, "an inevitable lack of self-restraint," as you put it, absolutely is the superior argument.

If someone wants to argue that birth control is immoral, as the Catholic Church does, fine. They are free to do so. But pining for a mythical past during which good Americans had the common sense to keep their hands to themselves until they said their vows is just silly. That past never existed.

According to this research, 75% of people are having pre-marital sex by age 20. 95% by age 44.

"48% of the cohort who turned 15 from 1954 to 1963 had done so by exact age 20, while 65% of the 1964–73 cohort, 72% of the 1974–83 cohort, and 76% of the 1984–93 cohort had done so. For the 1994–2003 cohort, 74% had had premarital sex by exact age 20..."​

Where those research numbers intersect with the uncited "30-40 percent of revolution era women are pregnant before marriage" from The Week article is hard to ascertain. So for now, I'm sticking to my original premise.

Brookings agrees with you, though, that before 1970 getting married was the most common outcome. Then the rate for out-of-wedlock births rose dramatically after what they call the reproductive technology shock -- a sudden increase in abortion services and contraceptive availability.
 
According to this research, 75% of people are having pre-marital sex by age 20. 95% by age 44.

"48% of the cohort who turned 15 from 1954 to 1963 had done so by exact age 20, while 65% of the 1964–73 cohort, 72% of the 1974–83 cohort, and 76% of the 1984–93 cohort had done so. For the 1994–2003 cohort, 74% had had premarital sex by exact age 20..."​

Where those research numbers intersect with the uncited "30-40 percent of revolution era women are pregnant before marriage" from The Week article is hard to ascertain. So for now, I'm sticking to my original premise.

Brookings agrees with you, though, that before 1970 getting married was the most common outcome. Then the rate for out-of-wedlock births rose dramatically after what they call the reproductive technology shock -- a sudden increase in abortion services and contraceptive availability.
I actually looked up the original link (it was an academic study) and I got a 404, or I would have linked it for you. Nevertheless, my point also stands: the change wasn't that people started having sex more. The change was that we changed how we responded to unplanned pregnancies.
 
Bring on more birth control for those that want it, but what do you mean by "remaining opponents from the religious right can't have it both ways."

The Religious Right lost the abstinence versus safe sex paradigm shift decades ago because of dwindling adherents, not because of stigma, and certainly not because an inevitable lack of self-restraint is a superior argument. With the prevalence of birth control and abortion today, is the Religious Right successfully opposing anything? Meanwhile, yes, boys are being boys and girls are being girls. Maybe Religious Righties should enlist Gillette's marketing team for help reviving their cause.

There has been a slow-burn of progressive nudging over the last 120 years from Teddy Roosevelt (eugenics), to Woodrow Wilson (forced sterilization), to Oliver Wendell Holmes (more sterilization), to Margaret Sanger (infanticide and birth control), to the 60's! (sexual revolution), to Roe v. Wade (viability), to radical feminism (phuk traditional family values) that has enabled current thinking and outcomes on sexual and reproductive ethics.

Sexual and reproductive norms now rest nicely between the legs of not religious and not right people. That we now have a host of wonderfully progressive outcomes to mitigate, treat, rationalize, or argue shouldn't be surprising. We reap what we sow and all that...
Your brain is full of spiders, you've got garlic in your soul.
 
What air quality standards are you talking about? Respirable silica standards were recently lowered significantly. Those rules were fully implemented in 2017. Full enforcement went into effect in October of 2017. So again, what specifically are you referring to that the Republicans have done?
When it comes to Republican evil, some just make it up.
 
That's not really true. When it comes to abstinence, there never really were a whole lot of adherents. People have been having sex before marriage since the country was founded. Before trustworthy birth control and abortion, the most common outcome was simply a wedding. During Revolutionary times, 30-40% of American women were pregnant when they married. As a result, "an inevitable lack of self-restraint," as you put it, absolutely is the superior argument.

If someone wants to argue that birth control is immoral, as the Catholic Church does, fine. They are free to do so. But pining for a mythical past during which good Americans had the common sense to keep their hands to themselves until they said their vows is just silly. That past never existed.[



The point here is that abortion was not a primary form of birth control in the past like it is today. I had a sister in law who got pregnant in HS. She had the baby and gave it up for adoption. Now we just get an abortion. That is dead wrong, pun intended.
 
What air quality standards are you talking about? Respirable silica standards were recently lowered significantly. Those rules were fully implemented in 2017. Full enforcement went into effect in October of 2017. So again, what specifically are you referring to that the Republicans have done?
Spend a month in a U.S. coal mine under these new uninforced standards and let us all hear from you again.
 
Another guy with no links.
I went in coal mines for 32 years 7 days on then one off. I Also was a national safety inspector in UMWA mines. My own mine 6 men did not see their families again. These things hurt. Have you ever spent time in a black lung clinic? Reminds one of a hospice service than clinic. You do not forget men gasping for air. As far as a link, I was in on rewrites of federal and state rewrites on dust standards more than once. Why more? The coal operators have since the diminishing union mines where we made them fallow said standards are just not informed, if so show me the link where cases of coal and rock lung disease has diminished.
 
I went in coal mines for 32 years 7 days on then one off. I Also was a national safety inspector in UMWA mines. My own mine 6 men did not see their families again. These things hurt. Have you ever spent time in a black lung clinic? Reminds one of a hospice service than clinic. You do not forget men gasping for air. As far as a link, I was in on rewrites of federal and state rewrites on dust standards more than once. Why more? The coal operators have since the diminishing union mines where we made them fallow said standards are just not informed, if so show me the link where cases of coal and rock lung disease has diminished.
How about providing some links? My grandfather was a Kentucky coal miner. He had black lung, but it wasn't his cause of death. I sympathize with this kind of thing, but you're not providing anything of substance.
 
More outrage -> more viewers -> more revenue.

It appears there are several states who are trying to pass legislation so that in the event that the SCOTUS makes a ruling against Roe their states would be protected. NY was also talking about changing the state Constitution. Question: can the state effectively protect themselves against a decision made the SCOTUS? I wouldnt think so but i am not an attorney.
 
It appears there are several states who are trying to pass legislation so that in the event that the SCOTUS makes a ruling against Roe their states would be protected. NY was also talking about changing the state Constitution. Question: can the state effectively protect themselves against a decision made the SCOTUS? I wouldnt think so but i am not an attorney.
Depends on the decision and how it is applied to the states. In this case, states aren't protecting themselves from a potential decision as much as they are preparing for the consequences of such a decision.
 
Depends on the decision and how it is applied to the states. In this case, states aren't protecting themselves from a potential decision as much as they are preparing for the consequences of such a decision.
If SCOTUS ruled for restrictions to Roe Wade that changed the approach, for example, requiring more than one Dr to agree that the Mothers health was in danger and requiring a Doctor to do the abortion how would that affect the New York law?
 
If SCOTUS ruled for restrictions to Roe Wade that changed the approach, for example, requiring more than one Dr to agree that the Mothers health was in danger and requiring a Doctor to do the abortion how would that affect the New York law?
That's not how a ruling would look. Rolling back Roe would allow states to restrict abortion more. It would not require it.
 
If SCOTUS ruled for restrictions to Roe Wade that changed the approach, for example, requiring more than one Dr to agree that the Mothers health was in danger and requiring a Doctor to do the abortion how would that affect the New York law?
I'm finally off my phone and on a real computer, so here is a more detailed response:

The primary difference between legislation and jurisprudence is that legislatures usually mandate defined behavior, whereas the courts simply define limits as to what can be mandated. As of right now, Roe and its progeny have placed certain limits on how much the states can restrict abortion. If those decisions were overturned, it would not come in the form of the Court mandating stricter access to abortion; it would come in the form of allowing the states to restrict access if they see fit.

The problem is this: most states didn't bother to update their statutes as SCOTUS made them unenforceable. That means there are many abortions that are currently legal which would immediately become illegal if SCOTUS reversed some of its past decisions. Several states, like New York, are seeking to update their statutes to guarantee to women the same access they currently enjoy, so that said access is not dependent on any rulings of SCOTUS.

So, in a state like New York, having passed this recent law, a decision by SCOTUS to overturned past abortion protections would have zero practical effect. In other states with valid laws currently on the books which would greatly restrict abortion, but which are currently unenforceable, a reversal by SCOTUS would immediately make abortions more difficult to get. For example, several states, like Louisiana, ban virtually all abortions. Those laws cannot be enforced, but if SCOTUS overturned Roe, they would go into effect immediately.
 
Links required.
And the kill-by-deregulation Party.

Black Lung is making an amazing comeback, a nastier form from inhaling silica dust. The right-to-life party relaxed air quality standards, knowing that to do so will kill thousands more people a year from respiratory illnesses. Same with water quality standards. 250 million tons of toxic fly ash generated every year. Kingston spill killed 30 with over 200 ill. I could go on and on...did you see what the Life Party has wrought in Florida?

FISH-KILL-580-31.jpg

Sorry for not knowing the rules here and not providing links. I check in only occasionally.

Black lung: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...disease-seen-in-u-s-coal-miners-idUSKCN1L82FT

Death from lowered air standards: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html

http://time.com/4219575/air-pollution-deaths/

Fly ash produced (only 125 million tons, saw 250 mt elsewhere, perhaps world total? ~300 million): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

Kingston fly ash deaths and illnesses: https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news...worker-dies-lawsuit-hearing-nears/1344072002/

Florida fish kills: https://www.newsherald.com/news/201...de-episode-kills-record-number-of-sea-turtles

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...ned-up-from-waters-in-a-single-florida-county

Relaxing EPA standards: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html

I should mention that I have 25 years of experience in pollution bioassessment in coal country and the Everglades. Don't get me started on "beautiful, clean coal" or "Big Sugar".
 
Last edited:
Sorry for not knowing the rules here and not providing links. I check in only occasionally.

Black lung: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...disease-seen-in-u-s-coal-miners-idUSKCN1L82FT

Death from lowered air standards: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html

http://time.com/4219575/air-pollution-deaths/

Fly ash produced (only 125 million tons, saw 250 mt elsewhere, perhaps world total? ~300 million): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

Kingston fly ash deaths and illnesses: https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news...worker-dies-lawsuit-hearing-nears/1344072002/

Florida fish kills: https://www.newsherald.com/news/201...de-episode-kills-record-number-of-sea-turtles

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...ned-up-from-waters-in-a-single-florida-county

Relaxing EPA standards: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html

I should mention that I have 25 years of experience in pollution bioassessment in coal country and the Everglades. Don't get me started on "beautiful, clean coal" or "Big Sugar".[/QUOTet'
Your post was about black lung and that interested me due to my Grandfather having it, so I read your link on that (don't have much time for more than that now since I'm going running). I fail to see how that supports your contention that the rise in Black Lung was due to Republican deregulation. It says the rise started in the 90s during the Clinton administration, and the high in cases that it listed was during the Obama administration. The EPA was under the control of Democrats for the majority of the time period they cover. How is this due to Republicans?
 
Your post was about black lung and that interested me due to my Grandfather having it, so I read your link on that (don't have much time for more than that now since I'm going running). I fail to see how that supports your contention that the rise in Black Lung was due to Republican deregulation. It says the rise started in the 90s during the Clinton administration, and the high in cases that it listed was during the Obama administration. The EPA was under the control of Democrats for the majority of the time period they cover. How is this due to Republicans?
It takes years for black lung disease to develop, so the party of the President in any given year is almost certainly unrelated to the number of new cases that year.

Ironically, one of the causes of an increase in reported cases may be the loss of coal jobs in recent decades, combined with statutory limits on when claims can be made. Well-paid miners might have foregone testing during early stages, but then been diagnosed after losing their jobs when facing a ticking clock on making a claim. Source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: i'vegotwinners
Ironically, one of the causes of an increase in reported cases may be the loss of coal jobs in recent decades, combined with statutory limits on when claims can be made. Well-paid miners might have foregone testing during early stages, but then been diagnosed after losing their jobs when facing a ticking clock on making a claim. Source.
Makes perfect sense. I'm not going to rock the boat if I'm knocking down $80K in the mine. But when the mine closes down, and I'm looking for income, a black lung claim is better than nothing.
 
And the kill-by-deregulation Party.

Black Lung is making an amazing comeback, a nastier form from inhaling silica dust. The right-to-life party relaxed air quality standards, knowing that to do so will kill thousands more people a year from respiratory illnesses. Same with water quality standards. 250 million tons of toxic fly ash generated every year. Kingston spill killed 30 with over 200 ill. I could go on and on...did you see what the Life Party has wrought in Florida?

FISH-KILL-580-31.jpg

As another poster asked to provide some links. Below are some links that I found indicating that silica standards were tightened in 2017, not loosened. Also, the spike in Black lung disease started in 1998 and proceeded to increase greatly through both Dem and Rep administrations. Finally the Government is increasing enforcement of silica standards. I can’t find any data where regs are no longer being enforced or rolled back except for the 2017 decision to not implement the Obama directive regarding water run off controls for coal mining.


http://smartsafetygulfcoast.com/industry-news/osha-respirable-silica-standard-smart-safety/

https://www.grbj.com/articles/89922-osha-cracks-down-on-silica-violations


https://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/li...pike-in-black-lung-linked-to-silica-exposure/
 
The Senate is planning to vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by Sen. Sasse and co sponsored by 49 Senators. This legislation would require that appropriate medical care be given to any child who survives an attempted abortion and would establish criminal penalties for health care practitioners that violate this requirement and a civil right of action to enforce the law (the mother of a child born alive may not be prosecuted).
Yay or Nay on the Bill?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT