Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Women's Rights

Recommended Posts

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 11:08 AM, DarkandStormy said:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-met-equal-rights-amendment-illinois-20180530-story.html

 

From my understanding, if one more state passes the ERA it'll set up a legal showdown re: amendments in the Constitution.

 

https://www.wavy.com/news/virginia/equal-rights-amendment-voted-down-by-va-house-of-delegates-panel/1715513630

 

Quote

Equal Rights Amendment voted down by Va. House of Delegates panel

 

To the surprise of no one, it was all Republicans voting against.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

https://www.wavy.com/news/virginia/equal-rights-amendment-voted-down-by-va-house-of-delegates-panel/1715513630

 

 

To the surprise of no one, it was all Republicans voting against.

 

If I remember the details correctly, there was a congressional bill that created a sunset for the amendment to pass. Can one of the lawyers shed some light on whether Congress can actually do that.  It seems that since the constitution is silent on how long an amendment can take to be ratified that maybe this is fine.  But didn't SCOTUS rule that there is no limit on ratification in respect to 27A. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, freefourur said:

If I remember the details correctly, there was a congressional bill that created a sunset for the amendment to pass. Can one of the lawyers shed some light on whether Congress can actually do that.  It seems that since the constitution is silent on how long an amendment can take to be ratified that maybe this is fine.  But didn't SCOTUS rule that there is no limit on ratification in respect to 27A. 

 

I noted it briefly back in May 2018 when Illinois passed it - one more state would set up a legal showdown re: ERA precisely because of this.  Some "legal experts" I read said it can in no one pass, it is purely symbolic now.  Others said there is no limit and it would become an amendment.  I'm really not sure.

 

EDIT - Virginia is quickly turning blue.  Democrats made historic gains in the 2017 election, furthered those gains in the 2018 midterms, so I really wouldn't be surprised if they picked off a few more GOP seats in 2019 and were able to pass it in 2020 (the House of Delegates has elections every "off" year I believe - 2017, 2019, etc.).  It's been so long that I'm not even sure of the legalities of some of the other states.  For example, Utah and Illinois ratified the ERA after the June 30, 1982 deadline.  Idaho, South Dakota, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Kentucky all ratified it but have since revoked it.  In addition to Virginia these states have never ratified it - Utah, Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.  Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Missouri have had it pass just one house of legislature, but it has not been ratified (this is actually Virginia's case now as well).

 

It looks like there have been attempts through Congress to remove the deadline, but have died in Committee.  I'm still unclear if this is necessary or if the SCOTUS ruling would supersede it.

Edited by DarkandStormy
  • Like 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know symbolically, states have ratified amendments decades after they have passed. Not sure how it would apply to the ERA though after Congress passed the hard deadline in 1982.

 

There is nothing constitutionally that addresses this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

There is nothing constitutionally that addresses this.

 

So i wonder if that means that the hard deadline is fine or if Congress can't create a hard deadline on the Amendment process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be up to the Courts to decide. I would think no, because the Amendment process is not a power delegated solely to Congress but also shared by the States. Therefore, I don't know if Congress can set a hard deadline and it is evident by how long the process takes (sometimes generations) that the makeup of Congress who voted on an Amendment is going to be completely different than the Congress when all the states ratify it.

 

But on the converse it would also be logical to say there should be a timeline on it because a state that supported an amendment initially could have changed their opinion 30 years later once the final state votes on the matter.

 

Take Prohibition for example. Hypothetically, if the process started in the 1880s with initial states voting on it, would those same states still support it by the time 1918 or so came along? Would it be reasonable to hold them to a vote from 40 years prior? I don't know. I do think this is an area where clarity is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, as someone who pretty much stays hands off of the entire abortion argument (NOTE: I personally think telling someone to be pro-life while also limiting access to contraceptives is stupid), though I am myself pro-life for the most part - I need to know how the bill proposed in VA is okay, at all. I initially thought that Conservative media outlets were probably overreacting, and the legislation is not as bad as the hyperbole surrounding it. So I looked at the proposal - and there are some DARK and glaring issues:

 

1. A baby can be delivered and, after delivery, with a remaining chance of viability can still be aborted. This is not abortion - this is infanticide. 

 

2. Hours before the delivery, the baby can be aborted if it poses a severe risk of deformity. 

 

I am of the camp that a baby can be aborted if it poses a significant risk of death to the mother as well as in cases of incest and rape. But what the hell?

 

Can someone explain to me how this is not patently evil? A few years ago, when Iceland allowed fetuses showing signs of Downs Syndrome to be aborted, I thought to myself "Wow, well at least that will never happen here." But here we are...

 

And, if any fellow Conservatives want an ACTUAL example of media bias (not "but muhhh fake news") this is it. The media coverage of this bill has been below average at best, and the one site I did see reporting it had a headline that read "Republicans Pounce"... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservative media has been mischaracterizing governor Northam's explanation of this bill. The infanticide comments are the actual fake news here and the media's portrayal of them pouncing is actually very kind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Conservative media has been mischaracterizing governor Northam's explanation of this bill. The infanticide comments are the actual fake news here and the media's portrayal of them pouncing is actually very kind.

 

A) It was a direct quote, with live video.

 

B) Does this bill not authorize a potentially viable fetus to be killed out of the womb? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Conservative media has been mischaracterizing governor Northam's explanation of this bill. The infanticide comments are the actual fake news here and the media's portrayal of them pouncing is actually very kind.

 

It's amazing that the same people who said we *HAD* to watch the full three hours of the Covington Catholic videos for proper context can't be bothered to watch the three minutes preceding the "outrageous" portion of the interview.

 

Here is the text of the bill so everyone can read it - http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+HB2491

 

Quote

The procedures, Northam said in the WTOP interview, are “done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

 

Northam’s office later made clear the governor was talking about prognosis and medical treatment, not ending the life of a delivered baby.

 

Some actual analysis on the proposed bill (which was rejected, btw):

Quote

Tran’s bill wasn’t as salacious as its detractors insist. It would have reduced the number of doctors required to sign off on a third-term abortion from three to one, and it would have allowed that physician to approve a late-term abortion for any medical reason, including harm to a woman’s mental health. This provision would have altered the state’s existing statute, which currently allows a team of three physicians to approve third-term abortions for women whose health would be “substantially and irredeemably” harmed by continuing their pregnancies. The bill would have also allowed second-term abortions to be performed outside licensed hospitals, in facilities like clinics. A House subcommittee rejected the bill, but if it had become law it would not have licensed Virginia physicians to perform abortions as a fetus enters the birth canal. Tran’s bill resembles New York’s Reproductive Health Act in that it expands access to later-term abortions, but partial-birth abortion, or “born-alive abortion,” as GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called it in a tweet, is already illegal. RHA didn’t legalize it, and neither would Tran’s bill.

 

Quote

Second-term are rare and third-term abortions are rarest of all, representing around one percent of all abortion performed in the U.S. Later abortions are usually performed because a woman’s health is at risk, or because of fetal nonviability.

 


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, YABO713 said:

 

A) It was a direct quote, with live video.

 

B) Does this bill not authorize a potentially viable fetus to be killed out of the womb? 

First of all you said that you read the bill and you obviously havent. You have erred in believing the conservative freak out .

 

A) the context of the video is not included. When heard in context it is obvious he is speaking of end of life care for a baby.  The same type of care and decisions we now make all the time 

 

B) no. It actually states that viable babies would be given life support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.be88e4fa1346b0ac04a71796bea3108c.png

 

This is the most disturbing language of it all, as this is permissive language of a discretionary attribute re: a woman's mental fitness. This would allow this up until the point of dilation.

 

Moreover @freefourur I saw the text point re: viability - nonetheless, the new language reduces the number and qualifications of doctors needed to determine the "chance of viability" and therefore, under this bill, a baby that is not likely to make it could be determined "not viable" under a doctor's discretion while it is still living and breathing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

image.png.be88e4fa1346b0ac04a71796bea3108c.png

 

This is the most disturbing language of it all, as this is permissive language of a discretionary attribute re: a woman's mental fitness. This would allow this up until the point of dilation.

 

Moreover @freefourur I saw the text point re: viability - nonetheless, the new language reduces the number and qualifications of doctors needed to determine the "chance of viability" and therefore, under this bill, a baby that is not likely to make it could be determined "not viable" under a doctor's discretion while it is still living and breathing. 

So the only change is the number of doctors to make a determination.  That is a loooooooong way from "muh infanticide" isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, freefourur said:

So the only change is the number of doctors to make a determination.  That is a loooooooong way from "muh infanticide" isn't it?

 

No - and I mean we can revisit this later or something because you seem to be falling into personal attack mode for some reason, which is uncharacteristic of you. I literally copy and pasted the text, showing you the change in discretionary language, which would allow a subjective determination as to the mental health of the mother to be the outcome determinative factor up to the point of dilation. I'm not citing some National Review or Fox News Article, I went and took a screen grab of the text. 

 

The language re: the viability of children already born is significantly less weak than this, granted. My outrage came from it's simple existence as an option. 

 

Beyond this is perhaps a point I should take to heart anyways, as I often criticize Conservatives for this point - this will never survive judicial scrutiny as written. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As DarkandStormy stated, please continue this discussion in the Abortion thread.  You can even re-post what you said (I'm too lazy right now to move posts).  Anything after I say about that topic here shall VANISH! Thanks.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

No - and I mean we can revisit this later or something because you seem to be falling into personal attack mode for some reason, which is uncharacteristic of you. I literally copy and pasted the text, showing you the change in discretionary language, which would allow a subjective determination as to the mental health of the mother to be the outcome determinative factor up to the point of dilation. I'm not citing some National Review or Fox News Article, I went and took a screen grab of the text. 

 

The language re: the viability of children already born is significantly less weak than this, granted. My outrage came from it's simple existence as an option. 

 

Beyond this is perhaps a point I should take to heart anyways, as I often criticize Conservatives for this point - this will never survive judicial scrutiny as written. 

I did not intend to resort to attacking.  I apologize for that tone. I just think that the outrage that this bill has been severely overblown as a way to score political points. I will continue in the abortion thread if I get a chance to discuss this later today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There it is...

FB_IMG_1549211884440.jpg


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another humorous jab... Ladies! Looking for that ideal, 16th-century marriage (and comparable public policies as well)? Well look no further!!

FB_IMG_1551023356807.jpg


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, KJP said:

Another humorous jab... Ladies! Looking for that ideal, 16th-century marriage (and comparable public policies as well)? Well look no further!!

FB_IMG_1551023356807.jpg

I am not sure someone who consciously chooses to wear a Hawaiian shirt off the beach or not in the actual state of Hawaii should be trusted to make final decisions for anyone, let alone themselves.  

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men 

 

SAN FRANCISCO — When Google conducted a study recently to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups, it found that more men than women were receiving less money for doing similar work.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, tklg said:

Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men 

 

SAN FRANCISCO — When Google conducted a study recently to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups, it found that more men than women were receiving less money for doing similar work.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html

 

So many issues with this.  It is, apparently, the first time (that I'm aware of) where a company found it was paying women more than men for similar work.  Guess what?  The company spent $10 million to fix it instantaneously.  Has that courtesy *ever* been extended to women?  Are the other (I'm assuming) 99.99% of companies who are likely underpaying women conducting similar studies with promises to fix it immediately?

 

https://www.wired.com/story/men-google-paid-less-than-women-not-really/

 

Are Men at Google Paid Less Than Women? Not Really

 

Quote

At the end of every year, Google conducts a pay equity analysis to determine whether employees of different sexes and races who are doing similar jobs are being paid equally. On Monday, Google published a blog post with selected findings from its 2018 analysis, highlighting that proposed changes for 2019 would have paid male engineers less than female engineers in one lower-level job category, referred to internally as Level 4 engineers.

Since Google’s analysis caught the discrepancy before changes were implemented, the Level 4 male engineers were not paid less than women.

 

The Google disclosure also ignored equity.

 

Quote

Google said it’s now analyzing whether women are being hired into lower levels than men with comparable backgrounds.

 

Quote

Google’s selective disclosures lacked much context. For instance, Google’s blog post highlighted the fact that it made $9.7 million in adjustments to a total of 10,677 Googlers to make compensation more equal in 2019. That’s about $900 per employee, at a company where the median employee made $197,274 in 2017.

 

As we've discussed about the pay gap before (and there may be another thread on it, I'm not 100% sure) it's not really about men in x job vs. women in x job.  It's that women are hired at lower levels despite having comparable backgrounds and are routinely not promoted to levels comparable to their male counterparts despite similar job performance, experience, etc.  The NYT piece is a clickbait headline once you look at it a little more in depth.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I'd share the below quote as I found it to be an incredibly profound take on a big reason why women are the secondary earners in a lot of families.

 

"Women don’t step back from work because they have rich husbands, she said. They have rich husbands because they step back from work."
https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/04/29/women-did-everything-right-then-work-got-greedy.html 


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhetorically impactful quote and I can imagine the story behind it ... but imagining is all I can do.  Paywall. 😞 

 

Nevertheless, it's certainly true that many top-earning men, especially if they're the kind in professions with 80+ hour weeks or brutal job stress (e.g., surgeons in life-or-death specialties like heart, liver, etc.), are going to be looking for a spouse who doesn't make a full-time career a core part of their identity.  But not all, especially those who are comfortable making household staff a routine part of their working lives.  (Needless to say, you'll almost never find a married couple in which husband and wife are both are doctors, large law firm partners, large accounting firm partners, etc. that doesn't contract out a lot of the household work.  In those kinds of marriages, money is plentiful but time is decidedly not.  And of course they tend to have larger houses that almost anyone would want to get help with if they could afford it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the article it cited studies where women with equal skills to their partner are severely punished for taking time off to give birth and electing to be the one in the partnership to do the things needed to take care of the kids.  It cites the increasingly high pay reward for working 50-60 hours a week (and not just for extra hours worked, but much higher hourly rate for those who can work those longer hours).


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we must be talking about a particular subset of the population, though, then.  There are certainly blue-collar workers who work 50-60 hour weeks for nothing more than the pay boost of 10-20 weekly hours of overtime, if that.  I doubt that's what's meant by the concept of a premium for those extra hours.

 

I'm guessing what they mean is specifically people who are on management tracks in larger companies (those with analyst/associate/specialist > manager > director > VP > SVP/EVP/C-suite hierarchies).  That's my guess, but I still probably shouldn't assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio Republicans are not only attempting to ban virtually all abortion, but most popular forms of birth control:

 

Quote

The bill would ban nontherapeutic abortions that include "drugs or devices used to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum.” [...]

 

“Birth control pills, IUDs and other methods of birth control like that – the bill states that any birth control that could act to stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is considered an abortion under this bill," Miracle says.

 

Becker insists his bill does not target birth control.

 

“When you get into the contraception and abortifacients, that’s clearly not my area of expertise, but I suppose, if it were true that what we typically known as the pill would be classified as an abortifacient, then I would imagine the drug manufacturers would reformulate it so it’s no longer an abortifacient and is strictly a contraceptive," Becker says.

 

It's odd that Rep. Becker is playing dumb about whether or not birth control pills are abortifacients. Anti-choice groups have a crystal clear opinion about this:

 

Quote

The term “contraceptive” indicates that the results prevent a woman from being fertile at all. However,  all birth control pills on the market today function as abortifacients part of the time.   The Pill ends early pregnancies part of the time by preventing implantation of an already fertilized egg.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, taestell said:

Ohio Republicans are not only attempting to ban virtually all abortion, but most popular forms of birth control:

 

 

It's odd that Rep. Becker is playing dumb about whether or not birth control pills are abortifacients. Anti-choice groups have a crystal clear opinion about this:

 

 

You will never get a pro-llfer to give you a straight answer on abortifacients.  They might realize that their wives are on them too.  It's much easier when they can just judge women they don't know that are using these abortifacients that are totally different from the birth control they use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-choice groups: "Every birth control pill available today is an abortifacient."

 

Anti-choice politicians: "Our bill would ban all abortifacients."

 

Also anti-choice politicians: "We cannot say whether our bill would ban any specific versions of the birth control pill."

 

🤔🤔🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if we needed more confirmation that the "pro life" anti-choice movement isn't actually about trying to reduce the number of abortions.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

As if we needed more confirmation that the "pro life" anti-choice movement isn't actually about trying to reduce the number of abortions.

 

They seem to be trying to make it illegal to have sex for any reason outside of procreation.  Absolute fascist prudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 7:22 AM, taestell said:

Ohio Republicans are not only attempting to ban virtually all abortion, but most popular forms of birth control:

 

 

It's odd that Rep. Becker is playing dumb about whether or not birth control pills are abortifacients. Anti-choice groups have a crystal clear opinion about this:

 

 

 

This is so ridiculous. You expect this type of crap from the Alabamas and Mississippis of the world, but what the hell is going on in the Ohio legislature? I can't imagine these types of draconian and downright scary laws are popular by the, generally speaking, moderate people of Ohio. I mean really, wtf. I see stuff like this and think how the hell could I ever move back to a state like this? We wonder why domestic migration to OH is negative, and I have to think that this type of BS political stuff is a big part of the reason why. The redistricting can't come soon enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, KJP said:

 

@KJP if you were being honest with yourself you should probably be giddy at this. This law is a giant nothingburger in the grand scheme of things and does more harm to GOP and Trump reelection next year than anything the Dems have done so far to harm him.

 

As is, Alabama passed a law that is unconstitutional in every district and will never be allowed to take effect. It will never see the light of day in the Supreme Court no matter how the majority may feel about abortion, because of how SC rules and precedent takes place in taking on new cases. If there is not a conflict of laws in the districts, it will never go there. There is no conflict here. This was not the right way to try and take on abortion or get a case to the SC. It was just a dumb idea.

 

So what Alabama just did was pass a law that does absolutely nothing but to energize a liberal base and give them an issue to define themselves going into an election year beyond the "we are not Trump". The Bama legislature gave the Dems a gift with this law.

 

Now the GA and OH laws are more tailored to actually make it to the SC.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm never giddy over destructive laws. I'm probably too straightforward and simplistic, but I don't believe in using ulterior, dangerous motives to achieve a desired goal.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, edale said:

This is so ridiculous. You expect this type of crap from the Alabamas and Mississippis of the world, but what the hell is going on in the Ohio legislature? I can't imagine these types of draconian and downright scary laws are popular by the, generally speaking, moderate people of Ohio. 

 

Ohio is basically Kentucky/Alabama now apparently with a couple urban islands that have been so far gerrymandered to be essentially rendered useless in trying to form some semblance of resistance.  The state is basically 52% R / 48% D now but to gerrymandered districts, the reps tilt in the R's favor where they have put up extreme candidates in many districts.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Ohio is basically Kentucky/Alabama now apparently with a couple urban islands that have been so far gerrymandered to be essentially rendered useless in trying to form some semblance of resistance.  The state is basically 52% R / 48% D now but to gerrymandered districts, the reps tilt in the R's favor where they have put up extreme candidates in many districts.

 

I'm not holding my breath on the results of redistricting either.  The party in power will continue to wield it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

The state is basically 52% R / 48% D now but to gerrymandered districts, the reps tilt in the R's favor where they have put up extreme candidates in many districts.

 

This isn't gerrymandering, it's simply the reality of population distribution. You can look at precinct level data and see it - I was one of about 10 people to get a Republican ballot at the last primary in my precinct. Hundreds of folks got Democrat ballots. Urban areas might lean 95% to the left, whereas the bulk of Ohio's suburban and rural districts might lean 55% to the right. There's not many ways you can draw up districts, especially ones as concise and small as statehouse districts, that would overcome that reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

This isn't gerrymandering, it's simply the reality of population distribution. You can look at precinct level data and see it - I was one of about 10 people to get a Republican ballot at the last primary in my precinct. Hundreds of folks got Democrat ballots. Urban areas might lean 95% to the left, whereas the bulk of Ohio's suburban and rural districts might lean 55% to the right. There's not many ways you can draw up districts, especially ones as concise and small as statehouse districts, that would overcome that reality.

 

Well the courts said you're wrong and that the state has to redraw its congressional maps. No doubt the statehouse districts are similarly ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, edale said:

 

Well the courts said you're wrong and that the state has to redraw its congressional maps. No doubt the statehouse districts are similarly ridiculous.

 

63% of the seats after winning just over 50% of the vote.   It's the old white guys clinging to power. 

 

https://expo.cleveland.com/news/erry-2018/11/0f32e762411182/ohio-democrats-outpolled-repub.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except gerrymandering has incubated the extremist policies we see today, including the trampling of women's rights.

 

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ RE the Bama law is nothing to be upset about because it has zero chance of ever being enforced

 

Yeah, we were told the same thing about LGBT protections not being watered down or removed.  I don't trust conservatives when they tell us a new Republican law doesn't mean anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Don't believe me, just look to the history of the Supreme Court. Even if the justices are sympathetic to the cause, they do not take kindly to people or legislatures that openly disregard the precedent in place and act in a defiant way such as this. Plus, to get in front of the SC you essentially need to create a conflict between the districts. This case must follow the ruling of Roe and Casey and it directly conflicts with them. Therefore, there will be no disagreement between a district and no conflict in the law. It would fail the tests on the books with existing case law. 

 

The more concerning cases to get before the SC are the Ohio and GA cases. They are similar laws in 2 different districts and seek to carve out a regulation to which Casey has ambiguity. These cases are much more likely to make it to the SC and could survive. The Bama law is actually a setback for the Pro-Life movement and really a benefit to the Pro-Choice movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ RE the Bama law is nothing to be upset about because it has zero chance of ever being enforced

 

I actually read the bill as passed last night. You're correct, because the entire bill is aimed for judicial review, as it calls into question the "definition of human life."

 

Bottom line being, I am about as pro-life as they come - but how tf are we going to tell women NOT to have abortions when they're in crisis, then tell them birth control and women's healthcare treatment shouldn't be subsidized for lower incomes? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

This isn't gerrymandering, it's simply the reality of population distribution. You can look at precinct level data and see it - I was one of about 10 people to get a Republican ballot at the last primary in my precinct. Hundreds of folks got Democrat ballots. Urban areas might lean 95% to the left, whereas the bulk of Ohio's suburban and rural districts might lean 55% to the right. There's not many ways you can draw up districts, especially ones as concise and small as statehouse districts, that would overcome that reality.

Where is Cincy's Democratic Representative then? 


Formerly "Mr Sparkle"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...