s/o You can get birth control online

[Dmmetler]

12 hours ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Maybe this is the problem? And thank you for the clarification. It’s just so hard because it feels like fear mongering when you don’t see this irl. It feels sometimes like both sides are taking the most extreme person or two they can find on the opposite side and using them to represent a whole group of people. I speak as someone sitting in the middle with friends who are on both sides.
Also, do you know that they are more liberal than those on the Supreme Court or does the left just want us all to fear the other side? I feel deeply that this is just a ploy to swing votes and that nothing will actually come of this at all. But I could be wrong. 

Except that for those of us in red states that HAVE trigger bans in place, it’s not than nothing will come of it. Because it doesn’t matter what the women at the Southern Baptist church want. The legislators they have voted in have already voted for and approved bans which do things like required a raped child to carry to term, a woman to wait until their dying fetus’s heart stops beating even when they’re septic, or that doctors attempt to reimplant an etopic. I cannot afford to believe that it is just a ploy to get out votes, and of course the Supreme Court won’t abolish Roe because the consequences are too dire, and there are many, many people I know and love who will be affected badly by this, even if it DOES just stop with sending abortion back to the states. 
 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Tanaqui said:

Texas, I eat things that used to have a heartbeat every single day. Things which not only had a heartbeat, but had higher brain function. I'm not a vegan. I don't think very many people on this board are vegans. Why would you ever say such a silly thing? "Heartbeat". What nonsense.

Moreover, in the early stages, there is no actual "heart". It is electrical activity in what will become a heart. 

Also, we allow people who have a heartbeat to have the plug pulled as they are not considered truly alive if they don't have certain brain activity. At fertilization there is no brain, so no brain activity. 

And finally, some of these laws ban abortion even before there is a "heartbeat". At fertilization. No heart, no heartbeat, no brain, no brainwaves. An adult in that situation would not be considered alive. We would remove the outside life support they are dependent on. An abortion at that stage is pretty similar, removing from the outside life support it is dependent on. 

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, TexasProud said:

Oh my goodness, you guys have gone completly and utterly nuts.  Ok... really. No one will make it illegal.  We just do not want a living thing, a thing with a heart beat, just like a little kitten or dog to be killed. That is it. Oh my goodness....

At fertilization, which is when abortion is illegal in some of these trigger laws, there is no heart, no heartbeat. No brain. 

Also, you know that only recently did birth control become legal, right? There is tons of precedent to make it illegal. 

[Dmmetler]

10 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

ITA. Be careful tho. This will run you right smack dab into the same groups advocating abortion  and birth control restrictions. Family preservation is a non-desired outcome where healthy, pale infants are concerned.

And, having taught in urban schools, often a non-desired outcome where poor Black or Brown infants are concerned. Pregnant teens definitely get pressure in my part of the country, to give up their babies for non-family adoption vs having a family member provide kinship care. The multigenerational family ties are one of the strengths of the Black community, and I have seen some pretty concerted efforts to break those because, horrors, it means that Auntie who is adopting the teen’s infant so teen can stay in school needs some social net support so she can do so. 

[Katy]

17 minutes ago, KSera said:

One of my adult kids just started the pill, and her doctor said we couldn’t do that particular appointment via telehealth because she needed to get height, weight and current blood pressure before she could prescribe.

 

That's the old guideline.  Maybe it still exists as a legal guideline in your state.  Maybe that doctor won't prescribe to someone she doesn't know.  Maybe she wants to make sure she's physically safe and not in an abusive relationship or being trafficked. Maybe she wants the appointment to make more money. The medical standard used to be to come in for an annual pap smear.  But now that pap smear guidelines have changed that isn't the standard anymore from a medical perspective.  Assuming it isn't a state law, any given practice can make their own policies.  There is no reason your DD couldn't have used an online service.  There's no scientific reason birth control shouldn't be over the counter.  Multiple studies have shown women are just as capable of reading and understanding the warnings and selecting the correct hormonal birth control for themselves as a physician is.

[Tanaqui]

29 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Moreover, in the early stages, there is no actual "heart". It is electrical activity in what will become a heart. 

Also, we allow people who have a heartbeat to have the plug pulled as they are not considered truly alive if they don't have certain brain activity. At fertilization there is no brain, so no brain activity. 

And finally, some of these laws ban abortion even before there is a "heartbeat". At fertilization. No heart, no heartbeat, no brain, no brainwaves. An adult in that situation would not be considered alive. We would remove the outside life support they are dependent on. An abortion at that stage is pretty similar, removing from the outside life support it is dependent on. 

For reference, the majority of abortions occur before 8 weeks, and the vast majority before 12 weeks.

Nobody in their right mind would compare a human embryo to a fully-formed kitten or puppy. There's a reason anti-abortion ads always show infants instead of embryos. Even if all you can think of is a blatant and ill-conceived appeal to emotion, people get more emotional over a good meal than the most attractive artist's conception of an embryo. Those ads may be insultingly low-effort, but most people do at least have feelings about babies.  (Those feelings of love for ones own babies are a huge reason that the majority people who have an abortion are already the parent of one or more children. They choose an abortion because they love and value the children they already have, and they believe that a new pregnancy would be bad for their children and/or affect their ability to care for those children properly.)

Edited May 11, 2022 by Tanaqui

[Innisfree]

9 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Texas, I eat things that used to have a heartbeat every single day. Things which not only had a heartbeat, but had higher brain function.

@TexasProud, I do understand your point of view. I felt the same way when I was younger: the baby, or fetus, was clearly human, because DNA. It was clearly alive and growing. And I listened to the descriptions of *how* abortion was accomplished, and just couldn’t fathom doing that, largely because of the pain I thought would be inflicted. This was in the eighties, mind: early abortion by pills wasn’t available. I couldn’t fathom treating an animal like that, and so I couldn’t fathom doing it to a developing human.

I was uneasy and unsettled about the legality of abortion, but I didn’t find arguments that abortion would happen regardless of legality fully convincing, because that describes lots of actions we outlaw. I was troubled by the dangers of illegal abortions, and aware that women often lacked any good options. So, I didn’t have a firm position, just lots of concerns.

And life happened. I had two children, watched my parents grow old, had pets. One dog made me think hard about life and death issues, because he was reaching senility as one of my parents struggled with it also, and my other parent approached death with eyes wide open. This dog was fine, loving and loyal during the day, but wandering the house at night, getting stuck in corners. He was beginning to lose control of his bodily functions. He looked miserable when that happened.

But the vet I was seeing then pushed medication which *might* improve his cognitive function. At that point paying for the medication was a stretch, and I had two elderly ill parents dependent on me, and an undiagnosed, highly reactive autistic preschooler. I was stretched to the breaking point. And I thought: look at this situation. If I were pregnant and wanted an abortion, I would find help and support. But I was being pressured to keep this dog, which still was undoubtedly more cognitively capable than a fetus, alive. And it made no sense. (I found a new vet, btw.)

So: do we value human lives less than dog lives? I see how you can look at a kitten, and say “if I wouldn’t do this to her, how can we do it to a developing human?”

So let’s look at animals and humans. Pigs are awfully smart, every bit as smart as dogs. They’re also fairly self-aware. I once had a conversation with a friend who had grown up raising and slaughtering his own meat. Killing chickens wasn’t too bad, he said; pigs were harder. “The pigs look at you and know what you’re going to do.”

And, of course, we still euthanize thousands of dogs and cats because we don’t have enough homes.

Horses are slaughtered in large numbers, too, even those who have been loved companions, let alone the unprofitable racehorses.

The truth is we don’t value human lives less than animals, in general. In general, we’re pretty cavalier about the lives of even the most intelligent, charismatic animals.

All of these creatures have some degree of sentience, probably far more than a first or even second trimester fetus. All will experience more fear and pain: we now know a developing fetus doesn’t feel pain until, what, around the twentieth week? So what makes the fetus the one people want to protect?  DNA, right? It’s human?

People have already used different analogies in talking about DNA and human development. I think DNA is like a recipe. It’s a set of instructions for assembling a human. DNA on its own isn’t a human, any more than a recipe is a cake. The ingredients to assemble the human are literally pulled out of the mother’s body. Just like a cake, a human isn’t done til it’s done.  

I wish I were able to say I was a vegan, but I’m not, nor am I likely to be. Like @Tanaqui, I eat things every day which had higher brain function than a fetus before viability. 

I haven’t needed to have an abortion, but I have experienced being stretched to a breaking point, and unable to manage one more thing. Knowing what I know now, I have more sympathy for a woman who decides she needs one than I could have when I was younger. I think eating pork is more morally questionable than having a first trimester abortion, cute babies and kittens notwithstanding. While the fetus is completely dependent upon the mother, she must be able to choose what to do about it.
 

 

[Lecka]

As someone who also heard all about how liberals wants to take away guns, during the entire Obama administration, there are some Democrats who do say some pretty strong anti-gun statements.  
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008

 

This quotes Obama’s “cling to their guns and religion” statement.  At the time I found it very offensive.  Now I do not read it the same way.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/sep/13/beto-orourke-on-gun-control-hell-yes-were-going-to-take-your-ar-15-video

 

What about this Beto O’Rourke.

 

I don’t know how to compare this, because I don’t think it’s a 50-50 situation.  I don’t at all sit in the middle and think both sides are equivalent and have people getting upset about inflammatory things.

 

But I think there are known, current problems without borrowing trouble that may not happen.  
 

I really do not know right now if this is Act 1 with a court setting out to overturn all precedent from the past 50 years.  Or if it’s not.  
 

It is just in the “unknown” category for me, while so many other things are in the “known” category.  

[chiguirre]

4 hours ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

I would love Links (with their own statements) that show who these dozens of politicians are, please? Masters is the reference people keep using and he’s currently suing the paper who originally published this because he claims it is false info. I haven’t done enough research yet to know my thoughts on who he is or whether there is validity to his claims.

You'll have to google for yourself because anything anyone posts is going to cross the politics line. 

[edelweiss]

12 hours ago, Joker2 said:

It’s so weird to me to hear others say things about the other side at this moment in time. I was a die hard Republican until 2016. I am from a family that rubbed elbows with these people and have met past Republican presidents and thought they were good people.

Things have changed! I don’t understand those who don’t see it. 

Same here. I was a proud Republican until 2016. I am fairly certain that I never voted for a Democrat once. I was always a moderate Republican and voted R for fiscal reasons, not social ones. I was always pro-choice, but thought that the left talking about our abortion rights being taken away was fear-mongering. I never thought that it would actually happen. Now, following an attempted coup and the authoritarian bent of the current Republican Party, I honestly believe that they are capable of anything. Seriously, anything. 

I don't understand how people can't see it either. Well, I guess I can. Too many people only spend time in their own bubbles and watch or read right-wing media which is very good at persuading people of the evil of the other side. 

So, in future elections I will be voting for anyone with a D next to their name. I have lost all faith in the Republican Party and doubt that I will ever vote for anyone from that party ever again. If I ever do, it certainly won't be this iteration of the Republican Party. 

 

 

[TexasProud]

48 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

You'll have to google for yourself because anything anyone posts is going to cross the politics line. 

Please message me. I can't find it. 

[TexasProud]

11 minutes ago, edelweiss said:

Same here. I was a proud Republican until 2016. I am fairly certain that I never voted for a Democrat once. I was always a moderate Republican and voted R for fiscal reasons, not social ones. I was always pro-choice, but thought that the left talking about our abortion rights being taken away was fear-mongering. I never thought that it would actually happen. Now, following an attempted coup and the authoritarian bent of the current Republican Party, I honestly believe that they are capable of anything. Seriously, anything. 

I don't understand how people can't see it either. Well, I guess I can. Too many people only spend time in their own bubbles and watch or read right-wing media which is very good at persuading people of the evil of the other side. 

So, in future elections I will be voting for anyone with a D next to their name. I have lost all faith in the Republican Party and doubt that I will ever vote for anyone from that party ever again. If I ever do, it certainly won't be this iteration of the Republican Party. 

 

 

Yeah, haven't voted republican since 2016 either. I did hold my nose and vote for Biden thought the abortion issue is really a sticking point. Just decided both sides kill people, just different types of people in different ways. I voted for the one least crazy.  But just may not vote next time. I have no party. 

[Tanaqui]

TexasProud, try the search terms "USA politicians contraceptive" or "USA politicians birth control" and then filter to only view links that come up within the past six months.

[KSera]

1 hour ago, TexasProud said:

But just may not vote next time. I have no party. 

You don't have to have a party to vote. Not voting is still making a choice. I think right now it's pretty urgent for people to be voting in ways that assure the continuation of our democracy rather than focusing on allegiance to any particular political party; political parties will become meaningless if we no longer have a functioning democracy, which remains very much at risk right now.

[TexasProud]

43 minutes ago, KSera said:

You don't have to have a party to vote. Not voting is still making a choice. I think right now it's pretty urgent for people to be voting in ways that assure the continuation of our democracy rather than focusing on allegiance to any particular political party; political parties will become meaningless if we no longer have a functioning democracy, which remains very much at risk right now.

I KNOW that! I have not voted straight party ticket. EVER. I probably should have said candidate.  I want a pro-life, pro-gun control, fiscally conservative, black lives matter candidate. Doesn't exist.  How do I chose. Abortion is killing in my mind, so that is non-negotiable. Prison reform needs to happen. So much systemic stuff has caused so much inequity that needs to be addressed. It just must. I value all of life. I cannot find a candidate who does that.  I will just see who runs. But I have ALWAYS done that. I just think the parties are way too left and way too right now and there is NO ONE who represents me. 

[lewelma]

9 hours ago, TexasProud said:

Oh my goodness, you guys have gone completly and utterly nuts.  Ok... really. No one will make it illegal.  We just do not want a living thing, a thing with a heart beat, just like a little kitten or dog to be killed. That is it. Oh my goodness....

If the laws defines pregnancy as starting at fertilization, then the IUD and hormonal BC will stop pregnancy. Under this definition, they are abortion because they don't stop fertilization but do stop implantation. 

If the law defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, then the IUD and hormonal BC will be allowed. 

Barrier methods like the condom, diaphram, sponge,  and female condom stop fertilization, so will not be impacted regardless of the definition of pregnancy that the state law uses. 

Here is a 2005 list of state laws and how they define pregnancy. A number of them define it at fertilization, some at conception (which is vague), and a few at implantation. Scroll down to see the table of the 50 states. Letters I, F, and C stand for implantation, fertilization, and conception. Clearly, the laws will have changed since 2005, but it does give you a sense that the definition matters and varies state to state. 

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2005/05/implications-defining-when-woman-pregnant

Edited May 11, 2022 by lewelma

[edelweiss]

4 hours ago, TexasProud said:

Yeah, haven't voted republican since 2016 either. I did hold my nose and vote for Biden thought the abortion issue is really a sticking point. Just decided both sides kill people, just different types of people in different ways. I voted for the one least crazy.  But just may not vote next time. I have no party. 

I get it. I really wish that we had more than two viable parties. Of course, it is going to be rare to ever find anyone whose positions completely align with your own, but more options would get us closer. At any rate, that isn't the system that we are in. 

You know, even though I always previously voted Republican, I actually said many times that I did actually feel that the system that we have works best when the dominant party swung back and forth. That way, we were making some change, but it was more incremental. It was slower than the Democrats wanted, but more than the Republicans wanted. There was compromise. 

Unfortunately, that has gone out the door. Only one party is interested in democracy now. Only one party is willing to find points of agreement. Only one party actually want to govern and not just rule.

I really fear that enough people aren't going to wake up and see this in time. At this point, we need to work to save our democracy and have two viable, non-crazy parties in place. Then, we can worry about policy issues. I think too many people who don't think that abortion or contraception or gay marriage or trans issues, etc. affect them will be in for quite a shock when eventually they come for something that does matter to them and an authoritarian party is too entrenched.

So, that's where I am. The only issue that matters to me right now is fighting for our democracy.

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, TexasProud said:

I KNOW that! I have not voted straight party ticket. EVER. I probably should have said candidate.  I want a pro-life, pro-gun control, fiscally conservative, black lives matter candidate. Doesn't exist.  How do I chose. Abortion is killing in my mind, so that is non-negotiable. Prison reform needs to happen. So much systemic stuff has caused so much inequity that needs to be addressed. It just must. I value all of life. I cannot find a candidate who does that.  I will just see who runs. But I have ALWAYS done that. I just think the parties are way too left and way too right now and there is NO ONE who represents me. 

Well, if that is your biggest criteria, just look to see if abortions are higher under one party or the other. 

[ktgrok]

So, Texas doctors are already seeing issues with miscarriage treatment and ectopic pregnancy treatment due to their abortion law. A pharmacy actually sent out letters that they wouldn't fill methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy treatment, other pharmacies have refused to fill prescriptions for miscarriage treatment, and doctors are saying they are being very hesitant to treat with a D&C due to the law and being afraid of being sued. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages?fbclid=IwAR3r5Nm2Sgwfi7137mfi_nxpwffxmNGR3BfL13ThayVKxvYpL8lEmUYehyE

[KSera]

21 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

So, Texas doctors are already seeing issues with miscarriage treatment and ectopic pregnancy treatment due to their abortion law. A pharmacy actually sent out letters that they wouldn't fill methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy treatment, other pharmacies have refused to fill prescriptions for miscarriage treatment, and doctors are saying they are being very hesitant to treat with a D&C due to the law and being afraid of being sued. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages?fbclid=IwAR3r5Nm2Sgwfi7137mfi_nxpwffxmNGR3BfL13ThayVKxvYpL8lEmUYehyE

That's really scary and sad. That will be really dangerous for women already in the middle of what is a tragic event for many of them (loss of their unborn child). I retained placenta after my first child and had to take something along those lines to finally resolve it (not sure if it was methotrexate or misoprostol). I don't know what would have happened if I couldn't have taken that. It seems like someone is going to need to sue back in the opposite direction for failure to get adequate medical treatment. Unfortunately, I fear it will require someone with a really bad outcome first in order to be able to sue 😢. Which is also unfortunately unlikely to take long to happen if women are being unable to get treatment for ectopic pregnancies. That is horrific.

[ktgrok]

15 minutes ago, KSera said:

 Unfortunately, I fear it will require someone with a really bad outcome first in order to be able to 😢. Which is also unfortunately unlikely to take long to happen if women are being unable to get treatment for ectopic pregnancies. That is horrific.

You have to have permanent damages to successfully sue in most cases. (I know women who were told this by malpractice lawyers. If you survived, and can still have kids, no lawsuit even if you are traumatized and were in danger or had unneeded surgery, etc etc. Almost bleeding to death is not enough to get someone to take your case, since you didn't die, and now have enough blood again. Sigh. )

[Sneezyone]

28 minutes ago, KSera said:

That's really scary and sad. That will be really dangerous for women already in the middle of what is a tragic event for many of them (loss of their unborn child). I retained placenta after my first child and had to take something along those lines to finally resolve it (not sure if it was methotrexate or misoprostol). I don't know what would have happened if I couldn't have taken that. It seems like someone is going to need to sue back in the opposite direction for failure to get adequate medical treatment. Unfortunately, I fear it will require someone with a really bad outcome first in order to be able to sue 😢. Which is also unfortunately unlikely to take long to happen if women are being unable to get treatment for ectopic pregnancies. That is horrific.

Scary and sad, also predictable and PREDICTED. I hope people listen. Finally.

[Rosie_0801]

Hey you guys, please reel the political talk back to where the mods can give you the benefit of the doubt or we'll have to end the thread.

[goldberry]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

So, Texas doctors are already seeing issues with miscarriage treatment and ectopic pregnancy treatment due to their abortion law. A pharmacy actually sent out letters that they wouldn't fill methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy treatment, other pharmacies have refused to fill prescriptions for miscarriage treatment, and doctors are saying they are being very hesitant to treat with a D&C due to the law and being afraid of being sued. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages?fbclid=IwAR3r5Nm2Sgwfi7137mfi_nxpwffxmNGR3BfL13ThayVKxvYpL8lEmUYehyE

This is the difference between how a law is applied in theory versus practically.  The law *technically* allows those medicines and those procedures when the fetus is already dead.  But in practicality, it will cause hesitation for some and others that are just not going to want to take any chances, like the pharmacy mentioned.  I truly believe honest hearted people can say this was not intended.  But the reality is that in practice, hesitation and avoidance are going to result in women dead.  

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by goldberry

[Lecka]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
 

This woman died in Ireland.  My understanding is this is a big reason they changed laws.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/death-pregnant-woman-ignites-debate-about-abortion-ban-poland-2021-11-05/

This woman died in Poland.

 

There’s another famous one in another one of the countries known for being Catholic and having strict abortion laws, but I can’t remember the country.
 

These two are just famous ones.  

 

 

 

[Ananda]

To bunny-trail back on the topic of the original thread, I wanted to say thank you so much!  I have wanted to be on birth control pills since forever.  But when I explored the possibility in my teens and 20s, I was told the gynecological exam was required.  Since I would rather die horribly than submit to the exam, I suffered for 25 years.  I ordered bc pills the day I saw this post and am giddy with hope that I may never have to suffer "female problems" again.

[kiwik]

On 5/11/2022 at 8:17 AM, Ann.without.an.e said:

That makes no sense lol

My mother remembers when you had to be married to get the pill.  Of course if she had been able to get it while single she  wouldn't have married my father and I wouldn't exist.  So not all bad for me.

[kiwik]

On 5/10/2022 at 2:46 AM, Katy said:

It isn't unsafe at all.  There is no reason to tie birth control to things that should happen at routine physicals and pap smears.  And they don't let you order anything but the mini pill if you're over 40, which doesn't increase risk for blood clots, heart disease, or strokes, and actually decreases risks for many things.

Fair enough.  In NZ you don't have routine physicals and I have never had my blood pressure taken as part of a pap smear so it is different.

[kiwik]

On 5/11/2022 at 9:32 AM, Katy said:

I recognize that you don’t live in the US and may not know many older women who had to get their husbands permission to go on the pill, but it was COMMON until Roe. So common idk if there are existing laws on the books that will go back into effect but I’d have trouble believing there aren’t. There are still OBGYNs in this country who won’t perform a tubal ligation without speaking to the woman’s husband. 

She was raised in the US and I think still has US citizenship and lots of family in the US.  It is not the same as me making the comments who was born in NZ.  I imagine her mother was one of those woman.  And even in NZ anyone my mother's age or over (70"s) had to prove marriage to get the pill so she must know people here who did.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, KSera said:

You don't have to have a party to vote. Not voting is still making a choice. I think right now it's pretty urgent for people to be voting in ways that assure the continuation of our democracy rather than focusing on allegiance to any particular political party; political parties will become meaningless if we no longer have a functioning democracy, which remains very much at risk right now.

Not to go off on a tangent, but in a closed-primary state, you do have to have a party to vote and it has to be a D or R. (In the primaries.) I think a LOT of people don’t understand that until they actually go to vote in the primaries. (That’s what happened to me once, long ago.) They think registering Independent is the compromise they are looking for but the outcome is that moderate voices do not choose the nominees for any position, nor do they choose local politicians. 
 

I do not know how many states have closed primaries, though. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Ananda said:

To bunny-trail back on the topic of the original thread, I wanted to say thank you so much!  I have wanted to be on birth control pills since forever.  But when I explored the possibility in my teens and 20s, I was told the gynecological exam was required.  Since I would rather die horribly than submit to the exam, I suffered for 25 years.  I ordered bc pills the day I saw this post and am giddy with hope that I may never have to suffer "female problems" again.

Hold on. Are you saying you’ve never had a gyno exam in 25 years? Because that seems pretty ill-advised. 

[KSera]

5 hours ago, Quill said:

Not to go off on a tangent, but in a closed-primary state, you do have to have a party to vote and it has to be a D or R. (In the primaries.) I think a LOT of people don’t understand that until they actually go to vote in the primaries. (That’s what happened to me once, long ago.) They think registering Independent is the compromise they are looking for but the outcome is that moderate voices do not choose the nominees for any position, nor do they choose local politicians. 
 

I do not know how many states have closed primaries, though. 

Right. I almost clarified that, but was thinking our conversation was more relevant to voting in general elections rather than primaries. I hate the whole closed primary thing though. I understand the reason for it, and it actually makes some sense under that reasoning, but I feel it disenfranchises too many voters. 

[Pam in CT]

re structural relationship between closed primaries/ winner-take-all Electoral College allocation, and how we got to where we are today

26 minutes ago, KSera said:

Right. I almost clarified that, but was thinking our conversation was more relevant to voting in general elections rather than primaries. I hate the whole closed primary thing though. I understand the reason for it, and it actually makes some sense under that reasoning, but I feel it disenfranchises too many voters. 

How the current primary system structurally rewards extremism, and how the winner-takes-all EC allocation structurally entrenches and perpetuates it, is a *different* subject, but it's definitely related to how we arrived at this moment and what polarized perils now lie ahead of us in response.

Ranked choice voting, y'all. The more I learn and witness the more a believer I'm becoming.

[Murphy101]

10 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re structural relationship between closed primaries/ winner-take-all Electoral College allocation, and how we got to where we are today

How the current primary system structurally rewards extremism, and how the winner-takes-all EC allocation structurally entrenches and perpetuates it, is a *different* subject, but it's definitely related to how we arrived at this moment and what polarized perils now lie ahead of us in response.

Ranked choice voting, y'all. The more I learn and witness the more a believer I'm becoming.

I would be really against ranked votes.

however I do think that everyone over 17 should be required to vote and have the option of “none of the above”.  maybe President has to get 51% of votes in half+one states. 

[goldberry]

22 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I would be really against ranked votes

The true measure of a democracy is how well the government actually reflects the will of the people. Not the will of some of the people, but the will of all people in general. Ranked choice voting more accurately reflects everyone and not just one particular group. 

I think previously politicians were better at at least pretending they represented everyone, but they've totally given up on that now.

[lauraw4321]

On 5/10/2022 at 10:19 PM, Murphy101 said:

I will say I disliked Alitos arguments. I thought they were in turns flimsy as heck or downright concerning even though I am pretty darn ardently against abortion.

ETA:  so much so that I actually have pondered if his paper was intended to be serious at all or satire .  

It was so ridiculous I thought it was fake.

[Lady Florida.]

My mother was one who needed permission for the pill. In the mid 1960s she and my dad were separated but not yet divorced and she was dating (he had a steady who was actually divorced but I have no idea if she had the pill). Their separation was mostly amicable so he did sign off for her to have the pill but it was ridiculous that it was even necessary. 

 

6 hours ago, Quill said:

Not to go off on a tangent, but in a closed-primary state, you do have to have a party to vote and it has to be a D or R. (In the primaries.) I think a LOT of people don’t understand that until they actually go to vote in the primaries. (That’s what happened to me once, long ago.) They think registering Independent is the compromise they are looking for but the outcome is that moderate voices do not choose the nominees for any position, nor do they choose local politicians. 
 

I do not know how many states have closed primaries, though. 

Florida has closed primaries. I don't know if NJ still does but when we lived there it had open primaries. When we moved to Florida my mother didn't want to declare a party so she registered what she thought was small i independent. The first time she went to vote in a primary she was shocked and disappointed to learn she couldn't vote because she actually registered Independent and there were no candidates from that party running.

I OTOH finished growing up in a closed primary state so when I went to register for the first time I understood what I was doing. 

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

 

Ranked choice voting, y'all. The more I learn and witness the more a believer I'm becoming.

NO!!! In my state that would take choice away because I guarantee in many if not most counties the top winners would all be from the same party. We had the opportunity to pass ranked choice in 2020 and thankfully Floridians rejected it. If we hadn't it would basically be all R's running with the exception of a very few blue counties. It was actually recently banned by our governor though I don't know why. It would benefit his party the most. 

[Pawz4me]

39 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

It was so ridiculous I thought it was fake.

Me too. I am not a lawyer, but the arguments seemed so unbelievably absurd that, like @Murphy101, I thought it was satire.

[MEmama]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

 

Ranked choice voting, y'all. The more I learn and witness the more a believer I'm becoming.

YES! 
We have it in it Maine and I love it! We can’t use it in all elections—I think just federal?— but I hope that changes.

Democracy hinges on actual representation and ranked choice voting helps get us closer.

[MEmama]

18 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

My mother was one who needed permission for the pill. In the mid 1960s she and my dad were separated but not yet divorced and she was dating (he had a steady who was actually divorced but I have no idea if she had the pill). Their separation was mostly amicable so he did sign off for her to have the pill but it was ridiculous that it was even necessary. 

 

Florida has closed primaries. I don't know if NJ still does but when we lived there it had open primaries. When we moved to Florida my mother didn't want to declare a party so she registered what she thought was small i independent. The first time she went to vote in a primary she was shocked and disappointed to learn she couldn't vote because she actually registered Independent and there were no candidates from that party running.

I OTOH finished growing up in a closed primary state so when I went to register for the first time I understood what I was doing. 

NO!!! In my state that would take choice away because I guarantee in many if not most counties the top winners would all be from the same party. We had the opportunity to pass ranked choice in 2020 and thankfully Floridians rejected it. If we hadn't it would basically be all R's running with the exception of a very few blue counties. It was actually recently banned by our governor though I don't know why. It would benefit his party the most. 

I’m curious— how would it *reduce* choice? 
 

Here there were pretend arguments against it complaining that it was too hard for adults to figure out the system (same ranking every kindergartener knows how to do—favorite, less favorite, least favorite, generally), but I’ve never heard that it could somehow cause fewer choices. I’m truly curious! 

[Guest]

The current electoral college winner-takes-all definitely needs revision. I think it’s horribly anti-democratic (small d) to have candidates who court a handful of states because of their electoral vote payout. 

[Lady Florida.]

1 minute ago, MEmama said:

I’m curious— how would it *reduce* choice? 
 

Here there were pretend arguments against it complaining that it was too hard for adults to figure out the system (same ranking every kindergartener knows how to do—favorite, less favorite, least favorite, generally), but I’ve never heard that it could somehow cause fewer choices. I’m truly curious! 

Trying not to get too political but I live in a red state regardless of the fact that the media tries to call it a swing state. Most of the candidates would be from one party with perhaps one from the other major party. Only occasionally would there be third party candidates. Voters in most of these red counties would vote 1, 2, 3, etc. for all the candidates in the same party. That is how it would reduce choice for those of us of other parties.

[Pam in CT]

[I don't want to derail this thread topic, but I am *really* interested in the comments re ranked choice -- it's a subject I'm delving into at the state level here -- so I will open another thread]

[MEmama]

39 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

Trying not to get too political but I live in a red state regardless of the fact that the media tries to call it a swing state. Most of the candidates would be from one party with perhaps one from the other major party. Only occasionally would there be third party candidates. Voters in most of these red counties would vote 1, 2, 3, etc. for all the candidates in the same party. That is how it would reduce choice for those of us of other parties.

I copied this on the other thread so we don't derail this one. I hope that’s okay, but lmk if it isn’t and I’ll delete it. 

[Lady Florida.]

9 minutes ago, MEmama said:

I copied this on the other thread so we don't derail this one. I hope that’s okay, but lmk if it isn’t and I’ll delete it. 

I was just planning to expand on this in the new thread. Will go there and do that.

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

My mother was one who needed permission for the pill. In the mid 1960s she and my dad were separated but not yet divorced and she was dating (he had a steady who was actually divorced but I have no idea if she had the pill). Their separation was mostly amicable so he did sign off for her to have the pill but it was ridiculous that it was even necessary. 

 

Florida has closed primaries. I don't know if NJ still does but when we lived there it had open primaries. When we moved to Florida my mother didn't want to declare a party so she registered what she thought was small i independent. The first time she went to vote in a primary she was shocked and disappointed to learn she couldn't vote because she actually registered Independent and there were no candidates from that party running.

I OTOH finished growing up in a closed primary state so when I went to register for the first time I understood what I was doing. 

NO!!! In my state that would take choice away because I guarantee in many if not most counties the top winners would all be from the same party. We had the opportunity to pass ranked choice in 2020 and thankfully Floridians rejected it. If we hadn't it would basically be all R's running with the exception of a very few blue counties. It was actually recently banned by our governor though I don't know why. It would benefit his party the most. 

to clarify, what Florida proposed was NOT the normal ranked choice voting that people mean when they say that. Instead it was a free for all type system that would do away with primaries. 

When people in other states talk about it, they mean that you still have separate primaries, but in that primary you would vote and rank your favorites from that party. People for the other party would do the same for their party. Then in the general they would take all the candidates - ones that won their party primary plus third party candidates that made it on the ballot - and voters would rank those. 

NOT what Florida was talking about, which was throw all the primary candidates from both parties into one pool, then voters rank those, allowing them to put people from the same party as choices 1-5 or whatever. Which is crazy, but hey, we are Florida for a reason I guess. Sigh. 

[goldberry]

There was a poster wondering if anyone was really suggesting the extreme ideas.  This bill was ultimately defeated, but made it to the floor in Louisiana.  Criminalizing women, and also including IUDs as abortificants.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/05/13/louisiana-legislators-iud-debate-orig-jm.cnn

 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, goldberry said:

There was a poster wondering if anyone was really suggesting the extreme ideas.  This bill was ultimately defeated, but made it to the floor in Louisiana.  Criminalizing women, and also including IUDs as abortificants.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/05/13/louisiana-legislators-iud-debate-orig-jm.cnn

 

Wow. So a state senator thinks anything that could prevent implantation = murder. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

Wow. So a state senator thinks anything that could prevent implantation = murder. 

Here’s what I want to know though: it says the bill didn’t go on. So what were the other people in government saying/thinking? Are they like, “Oh, there’s that weirdo, Jim Bob, who thinks only NFP is acceptable family planning. *eyeroll*”? Or are there others who are like, “Yeah! That’s right!” 
 

Surely the fact that it was defeated speaks to the unpopularity of such fringe views. 

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Quill said:

Here’s what I want to know though: it says the bill didn’t go on. So what were the other people in government saying/thinking? Are they like, “Oh, there’s that weirdo, Jim Bob, who thinks only NFP is acceptable family planning. *eyeroll*”? Or are there others who are like, “Yeah! That’s right!” 
 

Surely the fact that it was defeated speaks to the unpopularity of such fringe views. 

It sounds like yeah, he got pushback. But we have someone who is in office who thinks this. He got elected. That's terrifying. And given that just a few years ago the idea that rape laws would not have exceptions for incest or rape was considered pretty fringe - but now that's the law in several states. Didn't take long.