"Totally Under Control!

Worth a watch:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000p36r/totally-under-control-trump-and-covid19

He won't do anything.  His strategy in the Covid fight has always been herd immunity.  He might not have said it, but his actions prove otherwise.  If you're going to feel bad for anyone, don't let it be the American people.  They've done nothing to help themselves.  

If you haven't heard about the Executive order on Schedule F, do so.  

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-executive-order-civil-service-biden-election-schedule-f-b1255692.html

Sort of a spoilsport measure to completely destroy everything before Biden takes office.   Trump is starting with the Pentagon.  

3000,per day,dead

300,000 DEAD TOTAL so far......

However......

Chump has it under control.....

https://youtu.be/DWcP1L3zzzI 

M.I.A....?

No..... 

AWOL.....heel spurs.....flared up again......LMAO

now he's lost the presidency

and the war against ......covid.....

Or should we now call it the 

TRUMP VIRUS.......

he's caused more deaths than anyone or any country........

Stay safe all  😷😉

OMG, that says it all, Techno!  A big part of the problem with that friend I broke up with a few months ago after I found out she was racist, was that she believed so much crap on Facebook, from untruths concerning Covid, to BLM, and because of some crap on Facebook that Ben Carson said, she believes that Margaret Sanger was "a big pusher of abortion" (my friend's words !!!)

It's called patriarchy.  

Legislators and women's rights groups worry that the appointment of Coney-Barrett may precede the  attempted overturning of "Roe V Wade". 

To quote the wikipedia article:

 

Several states have enacted so-called trigger laws which would take effect in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, with the effect of outlawing abortions on the state level. Those states include Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota.^[152] Additionally, many states did not repeal pre-1973 statutes that criminalized abortion, and some of those statutes could again be in force if Roe were reversed.^[153] 

Don't get me wrong,  I am not 100% in either camp.  I believe in checks and ballances.  I also think that using abortion as a method of contraception is deplorable.  Abortion for many women,  is devestating in itself and this is often forgotten in the big debates.  I could never have had one myself,  had I ever been so unlucky as to have had a contraceptive failure.  

But I have also seen Women in Some states having great difficulty in obtaining much-needed abortions and for fatal fetal abnormalites, discovered in the third trimester, the law is not fit for purpose, as it forces the women to bring these few pregnancies to term;  This amounts to torture for both the mother and the baby.

So, the USA is far from perfect in this area, and in a small danger of becoming far worse.  But overall, it is a long way from the worst offender.  Just try looking at Poland..................         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Poland

Technophobe wrote: Legislators and women's rights groups worry that the appointment of Coney-Barrett may precede the  attempted overturning of "Roe V Wade".  To quote the wikipedia article:   Since 2010 there has been an increase in state restrictions on abortion. Several states have enacted so-called trigger laws which would take effect in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, with the effect of outlawing abortions on the state level. Those states include Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota.[152] Additionally, many states did not repeal pre-1973 statutes that criminalized abortion, and some of those statutes could again be in force if Roe were reversed.[153]  Don't get me wrong,  I am not 100% in either camp.  I believe in checks and ballances.  I also think that using abortion as a method of contraception is deplorable.  Abortion for many women,  is devestating in itself and this is often forgotten in the big debates.  I could never have had one myself, had I ever been so unlucky as to have had a contraceptive failure.   But I have also seen Women in Some states having great difficulty in obtaining much-needed abortions and for fatal fetal abnormalites, discovered in the third trimester, the law is not fit for purpose, as it forces the women to bring these few pregnancies to term;  This amounts to torture for both the mother and the baby. So, the USA is far from perfect in this area, and in a small danger of becoming far worse.  But overall, it is a long way from the worst offender.  Just try looking at Poland..................         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Poland

Main point being abortion has been federally allowed per SCOTUS ruling ROE V WADE for 48 years. "Seems" that is a long time to not be aware of it as a right in the US.  

Overturning Roe V. Wade has been a Republican wet dream for 48 years.  And neither Kavanaugh nor Coney Barrett would go on record as to whether Roe V. Wade is settled law or not, therefore it is vulnerable to overturn.

WitchMisspelled wrote: Technophobe wrote: But I have also seen Women in Some states having great difficulty in obtaining much-needed abortions and for fatal fetal abnormalites, discovered in the third trimester, the law is not fit for purpose, as it forces the women to bring these few pregnancies to term;  This amounts to torture for both the mother and the baby. So, the USA is far from perfect in this area, and in a small danger of becoming far worse.  But overall, it is a long way from the worst offender.  Just try looking at Poland..................         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Poland And there's the skirt around legally.  State legislation prohibiting late term abortions no matter what.  Even then time frames vary depending on who's in control in that state in terms what constitutes "late-term".  Then there's requirements of doctors, clinics, etc. curtailing access.  Roe vs. Wade aside, if you're in the "wrong" state, a woman has little or no control over her own body.

So I guess an abortion at 8.5 months would be just fine with you as long as a woman has control over her own body. No limits on abortion is what you are a proponent for I take it. 

And I guess getting a COVID vaccination should also be up to the individual as to have control over their own body.  After all if you'r worried about COVID then you could get a vaccination and it wouldn't be a concern if other people choose not to get vaccinated now would it.

Technophobe wrote: I have to agree with Witchy here, and I also suspect that this is what Carbon alludes to.  Being legal can be in name only.  It can still be almost impossible to obtain. And no. 8 months in should not be the mothers decision.  But there should be exceptions for fatal fetal abnormalities.  To put someone through the the risks and pain of childbirth, only to see the child die in agony is beyond inhumane.  Foetuses are proto humans, but not fully developed yet.  Every day that goes by increases the neurological development and with it the capacity for pain. By your argument, that is acceptable, if the alternative is giving exceptional status to the unviable.  I argue that is inhumanly cruel.

The Supreme Court ruled that a woman had the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and the three trimesters of pregnancy were used as a framework for its legality. In the first trimester, governments could not prohibit a woman from choosing to have an abortion as long as it was done by a licensed physician. In the second trimester, governments could enact medical regulations regarding abortions as long as they were tailored to protect the mother’s health. In the third trimester, governments could legally prohibit all abortions unless the procedure was necessary to protect the mother’s life or health.https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/abortion-laws-by-state

And yet it's not "impossible" or even "nearly impossible" to obtain an abortion in every US state. The various states merely follow the above stipulations as imposed by SCOTUS via ROE V WADE.

And "unviable" so does that include children with Down syndrome? How about blind children? Or deaf children? Or children born missing digits or limbs? What is "unviable" to be considered? Point being that is why there are limitations as to abortions because one persons viable is anothers unviable. And that range is rather wide.

AI wrote: ViQueen24 wrote: Overturning Roe V. Wade has been a Republican wet dream for 48 years.  And neither Kavanaugh nor Coney Barrett would go on record as to whether Roe V. Wade is settled law or not, therefore it is vulnerable to overturn. Settled law? SCOTUS has overruled more than 300 of it's own previous rulings.

My point exactly.  Hence the concern on the part of pro-choicers.

Oh, So Sorry, Carbon!

My condolences to your wife.  What a horrible thing, and just before Christmas.  I wish I could do more than just say how sorry I am.

This is the worst possible outcome for anyone.  

You are in my thoughts.

How did a discussion on "control over pandemic" become an argument about abortion rights?  I'm guilty too.   Ooops...!

I am sorry to hear that you have been told to expect the bad news, Carbon.  

May the birth of a granddaughter outshine the sorrow.  

So sorry, Carbon!  I send my condolences!

As to how the subject turned in this thread, Witchy, blame me.  I was talking about my racist friend a ways upthread...

No harm no foul, ViQueen.  It was less about that then the responses that cascaded through.

WitchMisspelled wrote: Technophobe wrote:   For the other trimesters, Roe V Wade seems reasonably fair. It depends on the State, Technophobe.  Some states consider second trimester late-term.

SCOTUS in ROE V WADE clearly determined the framework of pregnancy and what is allowed by the state governments regarding abortions via their federal ruling in the case. The time frame for abortions is not left to the state governments to decide.

The Supreme Court ruled that a woman had the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and the three trimesters of pregnancy were used as a framework for its legality. In the first trimester, governments could not prohibit a woman from choosing to have an abortion as long as it was done by a licensed physician. In the second trimester, governments could enact medical regulations regarding abortions as long as they were tailored to protect the mother’s health. In the third trimester, governments could legally prohibit all abortions unless the procedure was necessary to protect the mother’s life or health.https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/abortion-laws-by-state