Non-Jews- What's On Your Mind? -  The Depravity Of The Left (14774 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconSep-30 7:59 AM 
To: All  (987 of 1087) 
 3374.987 in reply to 3374.986 

September 30, 2021

         "forbids banning abortions on the basis of a baby’s race, sex, or disability,"

          They left out "eye color." They could call this the "legalized eugenics bill."

House Democrats vote to codify Roe v. Wade, legalize abortion on demand

The bill forbids states from subjecting abortion to ultrasound requirements, mandatory waiting periods, informed-consent requirements, and other health and safety rules.

Driven by fears that the Supreme Court may be on the verge of overturning the landmark pro-abortion ruling Roe v. Wade, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 218-211 Friday to pass legislation that would enshrine abortion on demand in federal law. 

In December, the nation’s highest court will begin hearing oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concerns Mississippi’s HB 1510 law banning abortions from being committed past 15 weeks for any reason other than physical medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities. Abortion defenders argue it violates the judicially-created “right” to pre-viability abortions; pro-lifers hope the case will finally lead to the reversal of Roe.

In May, House Democrats reintroduced the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), purportedly to prepare for such a future, though it would go much further than granting the tenets of Roe statutory legitimacy.

The legislation, which has been repeatedly introduced over the past several years without being acted upon, establishes a federal statutory right to perform and obtain abortions, including after fetal viability (under the broad cover of “health”), and specifically forbids states from subjecting abortion to ultrasound requirements, mandatory waiting periods, informed-consent requirements, and other health and safety regulations, such as admitting privileges.

The WHPA also protects so-called “webcam” abortions (i.e., dispensing abortion pills without an in-person doctor’s visit), forbids banning abortions on the basis of a baby’s race, sex, or disability, and forbids banning particular techniques such as dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, better known as “dismemberment” abortions because they entail literally ripping unborn babies apart in the womb, then removing them from the uterus limb by limb.

~~~~~~~~~~

That means that, for now, the future of abortion law remains in the Supreme Court’s hands. Many pro-lifers see the upcoming Mississippi case as the greatest test yet of the current justices, a majority of whom were appointed by Republican presidents yet have still disappointed pro-lifers and conservatives on various occasions. 

Only Justice Clarence Thomas is explicitly on the record as anti-Roe, and only he and Justice Samuel Alito have established consistently conservative records over a significant period of time. 

 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconSep-30 8:05 AM 
To: All  (988 of 1087) 
 3374.988 in reply to 3374.987 

September 30, 2021

         "A leading medical journal..."   

         Not anymore. See next two posts to demonstrate what the Lancet has become.

Fury as leading medical journal describes women as 'bodies with vaginas'

Now the Lancet CANCELS women: Fury as leading medical journal runs 'dehumanising' and 'sexist' front-page describing females as 'bodies with vaginas' to placate trans lobby

A leading medical journal has come under fire for describing women as 'bodies with vaginas' on the front page of its latest edition. The Lancet was accused of sexism and dehumanising women after it editors used the term, which was written in an article titled 'Periods on Display', on the journal's front cover in an attempt to be inclusive to trans people.

THE VAGINA MUSEUM, I WENT DOWN...TO SEE IT — A-Broad In London
   The article, which was published on September 1, examines an exhibition exploring the taboos and history of periods at the Vagina Museum in London and sees the writer use the word 'women' but also use the term 'bodies with vaginas'. 
 

The quote, which was then used on the journal's front page, read: 'Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected.' 

However the move to display the quote on the journal's front cover has been met with criticism, with some academics calling it 'insulting and abusive' and a 'misguided pursuit of woke points'. 

Meanwhile others said they had cancelled their subscriptions with the peer-reviewed medical journal - which was founded in 1823. 

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconSep-30 8:11 AM 
To: All  (989 of 1087) 
 3374.989 in reply to 3374.988 

From Recent History - July 25, 2021

       "The Vagina Museum doesn't want women to have to be reminded of the fact that they are women."

https://thepostmillennial.com/vagina-museum-womens-health

Vagina Museum seeks to erase women's health from public discourse

The Vagina Museum would have women's health again regulated to the dustbin of the undiscussable.

THE VAGINA MUSEUM, I WENT DOWN...TO SEE IT — A-Broad In London

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Vagina Museum, which is likely targeted to women, tells women that the use of the word "woman" is not acceptable, because some people who are female but believe they are men, will find the language upsetting. The Vagina Museum doesn't want women to have to be reminded of the fact that they are women.

To that end, they write that women should use much less specific terms to describe their bodies, women's health, and women-specific products.

"Instead of 'sanitary products', say 'menstrual products';" "Instead of 'feminine hygiene products', say 'period products';" "Instead of 'becoming a woman', say 'starting puberty'."

"Instead of 'women's health', say 'reproductive health' or 'gynaecological health' (whatever you prefer);" "Instead of 'women and girls', say 'people who menstruate' or 'people who have periods'."

What would prompt the Vagina Museum to instruct women to rewrite the language they use about their own bodies and experiences? Is there something wrong with the concept of the "feminine"? Is there something abhorrent about "becoming a woman"?

The Museum says that they want to remove shame from womanhood, but instead, in creating language that obfuscates femaleness and female bodies, they are adding shame. They are also creating confusion.

It has been decades of hard-fought activism by women to get the concept and practice women's health to the public square. Yet the Vagina Museum wants to rephrase that to say "reproductive health" or "gynecological health" as opposed to "women's health." The Vagina Museum believes that the only sort of health differences between men and women are in the realm of reproduction, but this is entirely false.

Women's health concerns differ from those of men in many, significant ways. Cardiovascular health is one key area where male bodies and women's bodies differ. The signs of a male heart attack or stroke are different from women's. Cancer concerns and risks are different, as is the area of bone health. These are just a few differences that, if women opted instead for the term "reproductive health" would be entirely missed.

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconSep-30 8:12 AM 
To: All  (990 of 1087) 
 3374.990 in reply to 3374.989 

From The Archives - June 7, 2020

       "The Lancet medical journal pulled the study after three of its authors retracted it, citing concerns about the quality and veracity of data in it."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/exclusive-lancet-study-hydroxychloroquine-complete-fraud-authors-linked-pharmaceutical-industry-people-died-lies/

The Lancet Study on Hydroxychloroquine Was a COMPLETE FRAUD – The Authors are Linked to the Pharmaceutical Industry and People Died Because of Their Lies!

The Lancet Medical Journal apologized this week and pulled the controversial hydroxychloroquine study.

The study released by Lancet titled — “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis” —  was retracted after it was found to be a complete fraud.

Reuters reported:

An influential study that found hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of death in COVID-19 patients has been withdrawn a week after it led to major trials being halted, adding to confusion about a malaria drug championed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

The Lancet medical journal pulled the study after three of its authors retracted it, citing concerns about the quality and veracity of data in it. The World Health Organization (WHO) will resume its hydroxychloroquine trials after pausing them in the wake of the study. Dozens of other trials have resumed or are in process.

The three authors said Surgisphere, the company that provided the data, would not transfer the dataset for an independent review and they “can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

The co-authors of this study are all linked to the pharmaceutical industry.

Mandeep Mehra, Frank Ruschitzka, Amit Patel and Sapan Desai

This incident is worse than was reported by the liberal media.

The purpose of the Lancet study was to create uncertainty and skepticism on the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat the coronavirus.

The HCQ was showing tremendous success in studies around the world.  And it was promoted by President Trump.  HCQ is a cheap drug that has been around for decades.

So this Lancet Study’s entire purpose was to lie about the drug’s abilities in order to promote more expensive pharmaceutical alternatives.  And, of course, they authors also knew they would embarass President Trump in the process.

What makes this so sinister is the fact that hundreds or thousands of individuals may have been saved from HCQ’s use but died from coronavirus instead.  

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconOct-1 5:49 AM 
To: All  (991 of 1087) 
 3374.991 in reply to 3374.990 

October 1, 2021

        "Left-wing activists have largely erased the term "women" from their political vocabulary in recent years out of fear of offending biological women who identify as men."

        Liberals should be OUTRAGED. Imagine a woman that identifies as a man. She is therefore a MAN, right, and everybody knows men cannot become pregnant. It is therefore SILLY to give these MEN abortion protections. LIBERALS - YOU NEED TO PROTEST!

Democratic Abortion Bill Protects ‘Transgender Men’

Bill would legalize abortion on demand nationwide

Women march across the US to fight for equal rights - ABC News

A Democratic bill legalizing abortion on demand nationwide includes provisions for "every person capable of becoming pregnant," including "transgender men."...The bill notes that "transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender … are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services."

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconOct-1 6:19 AM 
To: All  (992 of 1087) 
 3374.992 in reply to 3374.991 

October 1, 2021

       "If Texas wants to sue Google in Texas to protect Texans, it should be able to do so. The same goes for Utah, or California, or any other state."

Senate Judiciary Committee advances bipartisan antitrust bill aimed at Google, Facebook

The bill would make it more difficult for antitrust suits to be moved to courts that are more sympathetic to the defendants

A bill that would allow state attorneys general to select which courts hear their antitrust cases advanced Thursday out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with broad bipartisan support.

The State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act is sponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, and Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, the committee's top antitrust legislators, both of whom are themselves attorneys.

The politicians believe the bill will prevent state antitrust cases from being moved to courts that are favored by defendants and combined with private lawsuits.

The bill is one of a several being taken up by Congress this year pertaining to antitrust regulations surrounding Big Tech.

"This bill would simply strengthen enforcement of our antitrust laws," Klobuchar said.

State attorneys general widely support the bill, as well as some of the other congressional efforts to update antitrust legislation.

In addition to pending suits again Google, state AGs are pursuing an antitrust case against Facebook, which was initially dismissed by a federal judge, but is being appealed. 

But, some committee members have concerns about the retroactive application of the law to already pending cases.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lee and Klobuchar stood by the retroactive application of the law, saying that from a legalistic standpoint, it changes only procedural rules not substantive legal standards. 

Removing the retroactive portion of the law would "only help Google, which wants to do everything it possibly ca to slow down the prosecution and keep the case as far away from Texas as possible," said Lee.

He also said: "If Texas wants to sue Google in Texas to protect Texans, it should be able to do so. The same goes for Utah, or California, or any other state." 

Google and Facebook have been aggressive in their contestation of allegations of anti-competitive behavior and practices. 

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconOct-3 5:52 AM 
To: All  (993 of 1087) 
 3374.993 in reply to 3374.992 

October 3, 2021

       "But the problem is that once we accept and legally enshrine transgender premises into law — which we have done and are continuing to do — there are very real and very terrifying consequences that come as a result."

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/prestigious-medical-journal-is-the-transgender-movements-latest-conquest/

Prestigious medical journal, the Lancet, is the transgender movement’s latest conquest

The reason we must track these tectonic cultural shifts with such care is not out of some morbid voyeurism or self-righteousness. It is because these small shifts amount to a sea change.
 

The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed medical journal that is considered one of the most prestigious in the world. It’s the oldest and best-known, founded in 1823. It is also the transgender movement’s latest conquest.

On the front page of one of The Lancet’s most recent issues is an article titled “Periods on Display,” a review of an exhibition on menstruation at London’s Vagina Museum. The description reads as follows: “Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected.”

The backlash from readers was immediate, with many calling out the sexism and misogyny of referring to women as “bodies with vaginas” simply because some men choose to identify as women. The ongoing erasure of women, with the Democratic party, progressive academics, and media outlets obediently using phrases such as “birthing persons” while insisting, paradoxically, that “trans women are women.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To sum up: A Labour MP objects to women being referred to as “individuals with a cervix,” and her party leader cites it as evidence that more action must be taken to ensure that biological men identifying as women are recognized as such.

It may be tempting to laugh this sort of thing off. After all, academics and Labour MPs have been saying ludicrous things for a long time, and most of us would like to shove them all into a basket of ignorables and move on with our lives. But the problem is that once we accept and legally enshrine transgender premises into law — which we have done and are continuing to do — there are very real and very terrifying consequences that come as a result.

This week, for example, the Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled on a landmark case involving a 15-year-old child identifying as transgender after the children’s court removed the child from the parental home. The court cited “emotional abuse” because the parents opposed puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and the court stated that the father “misgendered” his child. As such, the government decided that the child would be subject to mental and emotional abuse and had to be removed. The parents have lost their appeal and will not get their child back.

To reiterate: The government removed a child from the parental home because those parents did not support a sex-change for a minor, and when the courts had to decide if the parents or trans activists knew best for their child, they chose trans activists. That is not just another perversely humorous insanity from our elites — that is every parent’s nightmare.

 

 
From: WALTER784 DelphiPlus Member IconOct-3 11:50 AM 
To: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon  (994 of 1087) 
 3374.994 in reply to 3374.993 

Current law protects both men and women...

Regardless of what they claim they are... they are either men or women... and thus already protected. No "special" law need to be passed otherwise! Existing laws are enough!

FWIW

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconOct-6 7:18 AM 
To: All  (995 of 1087) 
 3374.995 in reply to 3374.994 

October 6, 2021

       “You are all child abusers. You prey upon impressionable children and indoctrinate them into your insane ideological cult..."

https://therightscoop.com/watch-matt-walsh-unloads-on-the-loudoun-county-school-board-drops-some-moabs-on-them/

Matt Walsh UNLOADS on the Loudoun County school board, drops some MOABS on them

Out of the gate Walsh hits them hard:

“You are all child abusers. You prey upon impressionable children and indoctrinate them into your insane ideological cult, a cult which holds many fanatical views, but none so deranged as the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys. By imposing this vile nonsense on students, even to the point of forcing young girls to share locker rooms with boys, you deprive these kids of safety and privacy and something more fundamental too, which is truth. If education is not grounded in truth, then it is worthless. Worse, it is poison. You are poison. You are predators.

I can see why you tried to stop us from speaking. You know that your ideas are indefensible. You silence the opposing side because you have no argument. You can only hide under your beds like pathetic little gutless cowards hoping we shut up and go away. But we won’t. I promise you that.”

Wow! What a great sixty seconds of pure, unadulterated truth. I can’t wait to hear what he’s got to say the next time he’s at the podium.

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconOct-6 7:31 AM 
To: All  (996 of 1087) 
 3374.996 in reply to 3374.995 

October 6, 2021

       “Grossness is not a good objection,” wrote Atul Gawande in a 1998 Slate op-ed. “Lots of operations are gross–leg amputations, burn surgery, removal of facial tumors, etc. But that does not make them wrong.”

       Do you see this comparison. Biden's pick just made a positive comparison between medical treatments used to save lives, and medical procedures designed to murder the most innocent of all lives. Amazing!

https://www.wnd.com/2021/09/bidens-pick-usaid-claimed-grossness-no-reason-reject-partial-birth-abortion/

Biden's pick for USAID claimed 'grossness' is no reason to reject partial birth abortion

'We imagine, as we look in the fetus's eyes, that there is someone in there'

President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead global health development at the U.S. Agency for International Development formerly suggested that brutal partial birth abortion techniques should not be vilified over other abortion procedures, saying, “Grossness is not a good objection.”

“Grossness is not a good objection,” wrote Atul Gawande in a 1998 Slate op-ed. “Lots of operations are gross–leg amputations, burn surgery, removal of facial tumors, etc. But that does not make them wrong.”

A partial birth abortion is one in which an abortion doctor delivers a living baby until all the body except the baby’s head is outside the mother’s body, then punctures the back of the baby’s head, “removing the baby’s brains,” according to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Biden’s Health and Human Services Director Xavier Becerra has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the procedure is illegal, though the highly discussed piece of legislation passed Congress in 2003, was signed by former President George W. Bush, and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional in 2007.

Gawande also describes a partial birth abortion in gruesome detail in his 1998 op-ed, acknowledging that late-term abortions are “disturbing” since the unborn baby is ” big now–like a fully formed child.”

“Partial-birth abortion is, if anything, less grotesque,” he wrote, comparing partial birth abortion to Dilation and Evacuation procedures. “The fetus is delivered feet first. To get the large head out, the doctor cuts open a hole at the base of the fetus’s skull and inserts tubing to suck out the brain, which collapses the skull.”

The Biden nominee's frankness in discussing partial birth abortion is reminiscent of a very different period in the fight over abortion — advocates of the past few years are much less likely to discuss abortion techniques with such candor.

 

Navigate this discussion: 1-6 7-16 17-26 ... 967-976 977-986 987-996 997-1006 1007-1016 ... 1067-1076 1077-1086 1087
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.