Political Randomness

[Blackhawk]

The situation sucks, microcosm and macrocosm. If Democrats want to have a chance, they have to prioritize playing politics. But prioritizing politics leads to exactly the kind of broken democracy we want to prevent. If the other guy breaks the rules, you have to break the rules to make it a fair game. But if both people are breaking the rules, it isn't a game worth playing anymore.

[pr0ner]

https://twitter.com/JimSwiftDC/status/1 ... 7539452928

[noxiousdog]

I verified this it is real merch offered by Ted Cruz for Senate. To make matters worse, he's also selling signed copies of Green Eggs and Ham.

[Blackhawk]

Would he, could he, with a goat?

[Carpet_pissr]

Would he, could he, with a goat?

/Cucker Tarlson
"WHAT?!? I'm JUST asking the question! I'm not necessarily suggesting that Ted Cruz is a goat fucker, but as responsible citizens we NEED to ask ourselves: Is Ted Cruz a goat fucker? I know, it's sordid and dirty, but you know what? DEMOCRACY IS SORDID AND DIRTY! Sometimes we just need to put on our big boy pants and ask the tough bestiality (and Ted Cruz) questions. You're lucky to have me and my team ruminate on these ideas for HOURS, so you don't have to fall asleep with images of Ted Cruz behind a goat in your head. YOU'RE WELCOME!"

[LordMortis]

Zuckerberg [Trump]I take no responsibility at all [/Trump}

[Defiant]

That ship in the Suez is blocking the passage of so many things, some are suggesting that it be renamed...

https://twitter.com/forestlinden/status ... 1755912192

[dbt1949]

Arkansas has just made a new law that says doctors do not have to treat people if they don't want to. Mainly targeted at the LGBT community.

[Carpet_pissr]

Arkansas has just made a new law that says doctors do not have to treat people if they don't want to. Mainly targeted at the LGBT community.

I think we are going to see a lot (more) farther right legislation being passed at the state level, and it seems to be in reaction to losing the Exec and Congress at the federal level. Almost a fervor.

Happening here as well.

[malchior]

Arkansas has just made a new law that says doctors do not have to treat people if they don't want to. Mainly targeted at the LGBT community.

I think we are going to see a lot (more) farther right legislation being passed at the state level, and it seems to be in reaction to losing the Exec and Congress at the federal level. Almost a fervor.

Happening here as well.

They're testing their bounds. They'll see what they can do to push regressively on civil rights and see where the lines are. They also want to do it in unison to make it look like there is consensus. This was why the geographical takeover versus the population takeover by the GOP was important. They'll get more and more states to pass laws like this and sign onto lawsuits to add more punching power to their arguments. These anti-LGBT attacks are also red meat for the base.

[Blackhawk]

They're trying to prey the gay away.

I can't see this standing up in court. And I can't imagine that the AMA would be very supportive of it, either. Doctors denying care because they dislike the patient's lifestyle? The first time they refuse a patient service because of their personal beliefs, the AMA should do whatever they can to have their licenses suspended (although I'm not sure what their power is, as licenses are issued a the state level.) And if someone is harmed because of it, I can't imagine it not being malpractice.

[malchior]

They're trying to prey the gay away.

I can't see this standing up in court.

I wouldn't be too sure. The court is very conservative now - it even may be radically conservative. We don't know the extent yet. They may very well see this in some ways as an extension of their thinking in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby.

And I can't imagine that the AMA would be very supportive of it, either. Doctors denying care because they dislike the patient's lifestyle? The first time they refuse a patient service because of their personal beliefs, the AMA should do whatever they can to have their licenses suspended (although I'm not sure what their power is, as licenses are issued a the state level.) And if someone is harmed because of it, I can't imagine it not being malpractice.

Doctor's refuse care all the time for all sorts of reasons. I would think it'd be hard to tie lack of access to 'acute outcomes' which would make it very difficult to sue for malpractice.

[dbt1949]

Arkansas is trying to pass a law saying that kids have to compete in sports according to the sex listed on their birth certificate.

[Blackhawk]

Doctor's refuse care all the time for all sorts of reasons.

Sure, because they're not qualified to offer a type of care, or because the care being requested is harmful, or because the duty to provide care directly conflicts with another medical duty (see: objections to euthanasia.) There are a lot of legitimate reasons to deny care. But doing so because of personal disagreement with the patient or the treatment is crossing a huge, huge line, and a terrifying line.

LGBTQ keeps coming up (and was likely the main motivation), but this opens to door to denying birth control, refusing to treat sexual or fertility issues in unmarried couples, refusing to treat psychological issues arising from objectionable beliefs (could a Christian psychiatrist refuse to see a Muslim patient if their psychological issues touched on religion?), refusing to fill prescriptions for treatments they disagree with. What about refusing to give vaccinations where fetal cells derived indirectly from abortions were used in its development (including the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J COVID vaccines?)

[Blackhawk]

Arkansas is trying to pass a law saying that kids have to compete in sports according to the sex listed on their birth certificate.

Passed and signed.

[Jaymann]

Arkansas is trying to pass a law saying that kids have to compete in sports according to the sex listed on their birth certificate.

Passed and signed.

I just knew they would be trans, the moment they were born.

[Blackhawk]

It's surprising how many of these issues could be solved by the medical community itself. What if doctors, backed by science, started putting 'undetermined' in the 'sex' field on birth certificates?

[Unagi]

It's surprising how many of these issues could be solved by the medical community itself. What if doctors, backed by science, started putting 'undetermined' in the 'sex' field on birth certificates?

I had the same thought but I was thinking it was the parents we needed to get on board the solution.

I guess it really would be both.

[malchior]

Doctor's refuse care all the time for all sorts of reasons.

Sure, because they're not qualified to offer a type of care, or because the care being requested is harmful, or because the duty to provide care directly conflicts with another medical duty (see: objections to euthanasia.) There are a lot of legitimate reasons to deny care. But doing so because of personal disagreement with the patient or the treatment is crossing a huge, huge line, and a terrifying line.

Oh totally. It was more qan observation that "mechanically" the Doctor's are getting the air cover from the law to refuse service. It'll short circuit the malpractice suits most likely.

LGBTQ keeps coming up (and was likely the main motivation), but this opens to door to denying birth control, refusing to treat sexual or fertility issues in unmarried couples, refusing to treat psychological issues arising from objectionable beliefs (could a Christian psychiatrist refuse to see a Muslim patient if their psychological issues touched on religion?), refusing to fill prescriptions for treatments they disagree with. What about refusing to give vaccinations where fetal cells derived indirectly from abortions were used in its development (including the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J COVID vaccines?)

Right. And that becomes an access issue. We've already seen that there is potential that lack of access to abortion in some states is going to be shrugged off. You're getting to the heart of something that was crazy to me in Burwell. They said your employer can prohibit coverage for birth control which opens the door to all kinds of wackiness like this. When I recently changed jobs I specifically asked about coverage exclusions because I knew the employer makes decisions on my behalf and it isn't going to be obvious unless you dig in. Which is plainly dysfunctional when you think about it.

[Carpet_pissr]

Arkansas is trying to pass a law saying that kids have to compete in sports according to the sex listed on their birth certificate.

Passed and signed.

Not just Arkansas. This is happening/happened/trying to pass in many states right now. Obviously a coordinated effort.

[malchior]

Arkansas is trying to pass a law saying that kids have to compete in sports according to the sex listed on their birth certificate.

Passed and signed.

Not just Arkansas. This is happening/happened/trying to pass in many states right now. Obviously a coordinated effort.

Let me introduce you to Alec backed by the Koch Brothers..well Koch Brother now. Another organization like this is the Heritage Foundation. Alec and Heritage write the laws and get them in front of legislators in Republican controlled states.

There are other groups that file lawsuits to propel them towards SCOTUS and then sister groups who picked the Republican judges like Judicial Crisis Network and the Federalist Society. This is all part of their attack on our system. The whole effort is coordinated in plain sight except for who is donating the money for the most part. Most people just don't see it put together in one place to understand it.

[LawBeefaroni]

Doctor's refuse care all the time for all sorts of reasons.

Sure, because they're not qualified to offer a type of care, or because the care being requested is harmful, or because the duty to provide care directly conflicts with another medical duty (see: objections to euthanasia.) There are a lot of legitimate reasons to deny care. But doing so because of personal disagreement with the patient or the treatment is crossing a huge, huge line, and a terrifying line.

LGBTQ keeps coming up (and was likely the main motivation), but this opens to door to denying birth control, refusing to treat sexual or fertility issues in unmarried couples, refusing to treat psychological issues arising from objectionable beliefs (could a Christian psychiatrist refuse to see a Muslim patient if their psychological issues touched on religion?), refusing to fill prescriptions for treatments they disagree with. What about refusing to give vaccinations where fetal cells derived indirectly from abortions were used in its development (including the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J COVID vaccines?)

They can't refuse care based on protected class if they want money from Medicare, Medicaid, or pretty much any commerical insurer.

[malchior]

Doctor's refuse care all the time for all sorts of reasons.

Sure, because they're not qualified to offer a type of care, or because the care being requested is harmful, or because the duty to provide care directly conflicts with another medical duty (see: objections to euthanasia.) There are a lot of legitimate reasons to deny care. But doing so because of personal disagreement with the patient or the treatment is crossing a huge, huge line, and a terrifying line.

LGBTQ keeps coming up (and was likely the main motivation), but this opens to door to denying birth control, refusing to treat sexual or fertility issues in unmarried couples, refusing to treat psychological issues arising from objectionable beliefs (could a Christian psychiatrist refuse to see a Muslim patient if their psychological issues touched on religion?), refusing to fill prescriptions for treatments they disagree with. What about refusing to give vaccinations where fetal cells derived indirectly from abortions were used in its development (including the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J COVID vaccines?)

They can't refuse care based on protected class if they want money from Medicare, Medicaid, or pretty much any commerical insurer.

Are LGBTQA a protected class federally? That'd be an interesting intersection.

Edit: Topically there was a WaPo article about this last week.

[Blackhawk]

I hope it passes, but the Equality Act needs 10 Republicans.

[LawBeefaroni]

Doctor's refuse care all the time for all sorts of reasons.

Sure, because they're not qualified to offer a type of care, or because the care being requested is harmful, or because the duty to provide care directly conflicts with another medical duty (see: objections to euthanasia.) There are a lot of legitimate reasons to deny care. But doing so because of personal disagreement with the patient or the treatment is crossing a huge, huge line, and a terrifying line.

LGBTQ keeps coming up (and was likely the main motivation), but this opens to door to denying birth control, refusing to treat sexual or fertility issues in unmarried couples, refusing to treat psychological issues arising from objectionable beliefs (could a Christian psychiatrist refuse to see a Muslim patient if their psychological issues touched on religion?), refusing to fill prescriptions for treatments they disagree with. What about refusing to give vaccinations where fetal cells derived indirectly from abortions were used in its development (including the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J COVID vaccines?)

They can't refuse care based on protected class if they want money from Medicare, Medicaid, or pretty much any commerical insurer.

Are LGBTQA a protected class federally? That'd be an interesting intersection.

Edit: Topically there was a WaPo article about this last week.

Trump's Section 1557 final rule attempted to remove the ACA prohibition on gender Identity discrimination in 2020 but I would not recommend being on the wrong side of it under this Administration.

Under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (Section 1557), "covered entities," which were defined as health programs or activities that receive "federal funding" from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age or sex. Beginning in 2010, "sex" in this context included protections on the basis of gender identity – meaning that covered entities could not discriminate against transgender patients.

These protections based on gender identity were challenged in 2016. In May 2019, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on Section 1557, and in June 2019, it began accepting public comment on its proposed rule, which excluded protections based on gender identity.

On June 12, 2020, HHS issued its final rule, which removed healthcare protections based on gender identity from Section 1557. In short, the HHS said that gender identity is not captured within Title IX's prohibition against discrimination "on the basis of sex."

[malchior]

Unless I'm misinterpreting I see that as more than an attempt since they went through the rule making process. Unless they shortcut it - such as what happened with the DACA change - you'd think it would be binding. Wouldn't this administration need to go through the rule process again to re-establish the protection?

I just did some reading. The whole thing is a shit show like everything in the federal government. Just last year there were several conflicting decisions about this. There is a decision in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas saying the 2016 rule change that added gender identity was improper. There is a Eastern NY decision saying the 2020 rule change should be enjoined. The DC court also enjoined the 2020 rule in part.

[Blackhawk]

I did some reading on it yesterday as well, and it was a pain trying to follow the process and figure out where it ended up.

[LawBeefaroni]

Unless I'm misinterpreting I see that as more than an attempt since they went through the rule making process. Unless they shortcut it - such as what happened with the DACA change - you'd think it would be binding. Wouldn't this administration need to go through the rule process again to re-establish the protection?

I just did some reading. The whole thing is a shit show like everything in the federal government. Just last year there were several conflicting decisions about this. There is a decision in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas saying the 2016 rule change that added gender identity was improper. There is a Eastern NY decision saying the 2020 rule change should be enjoined. The DC court also enjoined the 2020 rule in part.

I say "attempted" because most providers and insurers haven't dropped anti-discrimination in practice. It's still in contracts too.

[malchior]

I say "attempted" because most providers and insurers haven't dropped anti-discrimination in practice. It's still in contracts too.

Ah got it. So big picture everyone is all over the board on this. The federal government rules aren't clear cut with the courts hip deep sorting that out, the providers and insurers are mostly aligned, and the states have different positions trending towards more disagreement. That sounds like a whole lot of the good fight ahead for folks out there.

[Alefroth]

Does anyone know if a bill that has 50 sponsors can move directly to the Senate floor for a vote? I saw it mentioned yesterday and couldn't find anything to corroborate it.

[malchior]

Does anyone know if a bill that has 50 sponsors can move directly to the Senate floor for a vote? I saw it mentioned yesterday and couldn't find anything to corroborate it.

I would think not. If that was the case, why wouldn't they be doing that right now to work around the filibuster?

Edit: I think this is a reference to Schumer saying he'd bring the PRO Act to the floor if he got 50 co-sponsors. In this case, it isn't entirely clear what his motive is trying to get 50 co-sponsors before he puts it on the agenda for a floor vote. It'd still be subject to a filibuster like everything else and there is zero chance it passes without filibuster reform. I think he is trying to drum up the votes for popular legislation before he commits to it so he can build a library of "blocked legislation" as the case for filibuster reform...maybe.

[Paingod]

It's surprising how many of these issues could be solved by the medical community itself. What if doctors, backed by science, started putting 'undetermined' in the 'sex' field on birth certificates?

They should just do a quick gene test and change the certificate to have a "Chromosome" check box for 2X, XY, X2Y, 2X2Y, 3XY, 4X, 4XY, or 5X

Someone, somewhere, will still be offended at being called XX or XY, though, despite it being the literal truth that never changes based on gender identity. It's just a baseline that determines the way your body is prone to developing without intervention, and that development is substantially different between the two.

XX and XY chromosomes produce a body chassis and structure that are different enough that putting them in direct competition in many arenas isn't fair. There also comes a time in life when an XY pair can be stunted before it hyper-asserts itself, but after it has it takes a long time to mitigate the effect it's had on the body.

In applying for a loan, the bank asked me what gender I identified as "when I woke up this morning" and I laughed - assuming it was a joke. Apparently not. I learned then there are people who just change their identification on the fly and expect everyone to keep up. I feel bad saying it, but I (and probably many others) am feeling a kind of "gender fatigue" - I honestly don't care what gender you are and if we can solve all the problems by calling everyone "they" then let's just do it. If it means we eliminate gender as a question on every form known to humankind, do it. In sports they can deal with whatever they need to do to find a way to keep competition fair, even if it means opening a new league for trans athletes to solve the problem of who they might compete against.

[Blackhawk]

It's surprising how many of these issues could be solved by the medical community itself. What if doctors, backed by science, started putting 'undetermined' in the 'sex' field on birth certificates?

They should just do a quick gene test and change the certificate to have a "Chromosome" check box for 2X, XY, X2Y, 2X2Y, 3XY, 4X, 4XY, or 5X

Someone, somewhere, will still be offended at being called XX or XY, though, despite it being the literal truth that never changes based on gender identity. It's just a baseline that determines the way your body is prone to developing without intervention, and that development is substantially different between the two.

That's the same thing they're doing now, just with different phrasing. It's still just designating a biological sex (although it leaves room for more of them.) The problem is that too many people don't know (or won't accept) that sex and gender aren't the same thing, so they insist on assigning gender based on sex.

Physical competition is one place where we're hitting a roadblock, as it's almost entirely physical (which is affected by sex) vs social (which is affected by gender), but tying it to sex creates a social issue that I can 100% understand. It's a tough one to work around, and it's one of the few issues of this sort where there will have to be some sort of compromise from both sides.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's surprising how many of these issues could be solved by the medical community itself. What if doctors, backed by science, started putting 'undetermined' in the 'sex' field on birth certificates?

They should just do a quick gene test and change the certificate to have a "Chromosome" check box for 2X, XY, X2Y, 2X2Y, 3XY, 4X, 4XY, or 5X

Someone, somewhere, will still be offended at being called XX or XY, though, despite it being the literal truth that never changes based on gender identity. It's just a baseline that determines the way your body is prone to developing without intervention, and that development is substantially different between the two.

That's the same thing they're doing now, just with different phrasing. It's still just designating a biological sex (although it leaves room for more of them.) The problem is that too many people don't know (or won't accept) that sex and gender aren't the same thing, so they insist on assigning gender based on sex.

Physical competition is one place where we're hitting a roadblock, as it's almost entirely physical (which is affected by sex) vs social (which is affected by gender), but tying it to sex creates a social issue that I can 100% understand. It's a tough one to work around, and it's one of the few issues of this sort where there will have to be some sort of compromise from both sides.

We have 3 different sections in the medical record:
Biological sex
Gender identity
Sexual orientation

Biological sex is imperative for healthcare purposes, obviously. GI has 7 options including write-in and SO has 5 including write-in. GI and SO also have "prefer not to disclose".

[Skinypupy]

I'm not sure where this would go, so I'll just put it here. MN Supreme Court just ruled that if someone is "voluntarily intoxicated", they cannot be the victim of felony rape.

What. The. Fuck?

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1376292784894836742

Minnesota Supreme Court rules that a person who is sexually assaulted while intoxicated does not fit the designation for a more serious charge if he or she consumed the alcohol or drugs voluntarily.

[malchior]

I read a lot of outrage about this over the weekend but from what I gathered the problem is the laws in MN around this are just shitty. It was a unanimous decision. The law needs to be modernized badly.

[disarm]

Like Malchior suggested, the problem isn't with the MN supreme court, it's with the way the state's law is written. The job of the supreme court in this case was to interpret the law as written, not to write or rewrite the law itself. The decision leads to maintaining a horrible piece of legislation, but now that it has been clearly defined, hopefully the legislators will work to improve the law. Hopefully...

[Skinypupy]

Thanks for the clarification...I probably shouldn't have knee-jerked like that. Still, it seems like a truly horrid piece of legislation to begin with, so hopefully this will provide some visibility and pressure to get it fixed.

Difficulty (as always): GOP.

[dbt1949]

Is it just me or can you not yell racist things at designated people and be arrested for hate crimes? I.E. can I not yell racist things at minorities? (as long as I am not threatening them)

[Isgrimnur]

Free Speech is a superpower.