OTOH they did delete all those Jan 06 text messages so I no longer regard them as objective in the performance of their duties.
octopus_ink
joined 8 months ago
Everyone seems to, except major phone manufacturers. 😡
She'll probably be happy to take it. She achieved her goal, like a good soldier.
“Still a man, he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” -Paul Simon
I think you need to heed your own advice based on how this discussion has gone.
I don’t see this being examined in any objective and scientific way.
What would be scientific would be to allow women and their doctors to evaluate those risks together and make the decision without Republican lawmakers continuing to try to insert themselves in between. Sorry if that's too emotional.
I'm also quite sure there are scientific journal papers that cover this. I feel like you are expecting an awful lot from an article about a specific event on politico.
It is literally the highlighted quote in the article: “we actually have the substantiated proof of something we already knew—that abortion bans kill people.”
For someone who complains about others not being objective, I find it unexpected that this is what you would quote to support this assertion by you:
using a sample size of 1 as evidence of an epidemic
and the perception that no women die from legal abortion procedures.
I don't know anyone who has edit: [ever expressed] that perception. Anecdotal I know, but I'm skeptical it's a common belief among adults of voting age.
using a sample size of 1 as evidence of an epidemic
I don't see that word, nor any language that conveys that impression in the article.
I do see this:
At least two women in Georgia died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state, ProPublica has found. This is one of their stories.
That seems pretty straightforward and unsensationalized to me.
On the one hand, you have some women dying of complications arising from an elective procedure that they chose to have, based either on medical necessity or other factors. On the other hand you have a woman in need of medical care that she wished to have, and was denied, due to her reproductive autonomy being denied, then dying as a result.
Yet you have a hard time distinguishing what makes these things different?
I mean, hasn’t it been pretty clear for at least a year now that this is the plan.
I'd love for that to be so, but I think centrist dems are OK with status quo, nothing progressive, already. An influx of "conservative democrats" isn't going to move the needle in a good way.
Again, sincerely hoping to be proven wrong, that's just how I read it.
Raise your hand if you think this will result in meaningful consequences of any kind.
crickets
So here I am sitting on lemmy.ml which is defederated from threads (and which I chose primarily for that reason) and I see a comment from the user above.
That comment is on a community at lemmy.world, and the user is apparently registered with their @threads username through @sh.itjust.works.
IIRC .world does NOT respect the fedipact, and I guess this means sh.itjust.works must not either, but I'm super confused by the username.
So I guess I still need to just block all the threads users I see, defederation or not?
view more: next ›
Magas, anime butterfly meme, "Is this the deep state?"