Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade

barese

Pro
Joined
Dec 11, 2013
Messages
659
Reputation
172
Daps
1,278
A miscarriage-related infection known as a septic embolus can restrict blood flow to the extremities and cause necrosis; vasopressors, which are medications used to stabilize blood pressure during sepsis, can also choke off blood flow in this way. Moayedi told me about patients she has treated who have had to have limbs amputated, “because physicians refused to intervene in a timely fashion in their miscarriages.”
What the “Life of the Mother” Might Mean in a Post-Roe America


Incomplete miscarriage can leed to limbs amputation...
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
15,595
Reputation
4,493
Daps
43,134
what is meaningful to you might not be meaningful to the people who make up the flyover states and get the same number of senators as california and new york with the added bonus of there being more of them. there is a math problem. then someone might say "but it's possible for the democrats to overcome that math problem and get a substantial majority." how do they overcome it? by running republican-lites in those areas which inherently makes them unreliable votes in the senate or house if they do win.
The problem is there are more Maines who will elect a nice moderate Republican for tax breaks than a Arkansas who will elect a Democrat for climate change.

Even if they lowered the majority votes from 60 to 55 it’s easier and more likely to be living under Republican majority.

Black people are the Dems only solid base. White people and Latinos can’t be counted on to deliver Texas or Missouri every two years to keep Republicans at bay.
Democrats refusing to abolish the filibuster isn't going to keep Republicans from doing the same the second they're able to. This fundamental problem here is that Democrats still believe Republicans are playing by the same set of "responsible governance" rules regarding "norms" and shyt. Every single member of Democratic leadership was present for McConnell taking a truly unprecedented breach of norms with the Garland nomination and they didn't learn a motherfukking thing.

So all your hypotheticals have no bearing on strategy because they'll happen regardless of whether Democratic refuse to wield power. The Senate will still be antidemocratic and structurally slanted towards rural/Republican states. The only way to change the math is to pass structural reform or engage in mass politics via “abnormal” legislation or maneuvers. Republicans have no qualms about being first movers. They understand the stakes. Democrats do not. Republicans don't wait for Democrats to break norms before they do, they just exercise power. Democrats are more concerned with handing over to Republicans a pristine car so Republicans can drive it into a brick wall rather than getting the car a little dirty by taking it offroading to get around the wall.

You must exercise power when you have it because you never know when you'll have it again, especially with an opponent as ruthless as Republicans. This is a question of who will pull the trigger first. Republicans have shown before that they have 0 qualms with doing so, and will do so the minute they get the gun. Democrats are scared to shoot. We can see this in the Democratic leadership constantly mentioning they want a strong Republican Party. This is evidence of madness. Deep brain rot. Politics ain't fukkin beanbag, Democrats should want to crush Republicans into submission. You do that by actually wielding power and not capitulating before you even try because you're afraid the court will rule against you or you're afraid of backlash from a$$holes who will never vote for you anyway.
 
Last edited:

Json

Superstar
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
12,818
Reputation
1,393
Daps
38,883
Reppin
Central VA
Democrats refusing to abolish the filibuster isn't going to keep Republicans from doing the same the second they're able to. This fundamental problem here is that Democrats still believe Republicans are playing by the same set of "responsible governance" rules regarding "norms" and shyt. Every single member of Democratic leadership was present for McConnell taking a truly unprecedented breach of norms with the Garland nomination and they didn't learn a motherfukking thing.

So all your hypotheticals have no bearing on strategy because they'll happen regardless of whether Democratic refuse to wield power. The Senate will still be antidemocratic and structurally slanted towards rural/Republican states. The only way to change the math is to pass structural reform or engage in mass politics via “abnormal” legislation or maneuvers. Republicans have no qualms about being first movers. They understand the stakes. Democrats do not. Republicans don't wait for Democrats to break norms before they do, they just exercise power. Democrats are more concerned with handing over to Republicans a pristine car so Republicans can drive it into a brick wall rather than getting the car a little dirty by taking it offroading to get around the wall.

You must exercise power when you have it because you never know when you'll have it again, especially with an opponent as ruthless as Republicans. This is a question of who will pull the trigger first. Republicans have shown before that they have 0 qualms with doing so, and will do so the minute they get the gun. Democrats are scared to shoot. We can see this in the Democratic leadership constantly mentioning they want a strong Republican Party. This is evidence of madness. Deep brain rot. Politics ain't fukkin beanbag, Democrats should want to crush Republicans into submission. You do that by actually wielding power and not capitulating before you even try because you're afraid the court will rule against you or you're afraid of backlash from a$$holes who will never vote for you anyway.
I can’t refute your point since the Dems were the ones who abolished the judicial filibusters for Republican obstruction, but my sense is they won’t. At least under McConnell they have decided that simply doing nothing and filling judicial seats is their play.

They don’t need to remove the filibuster cause they don’t have any legislation they want to pass. Rolling back government regulations and putting corporate stooges in important seats doesn’t require removing the filibuster.

Once a new Republican majority leader takes over..who knows
 
Last edited:

barese

Pro
Joined
Dec 11, 2013
Messages
659
Reputation
172
Daps
1,278




I didn't know the US already has such shameful maternal mortality figures for all races.

Serbia has 12 per 100.000 births.
The figure was under public scrutiny in the last few years because of some tragic cases, and because it is quadruple compared to German one.

It's despicable that the US figure across all races is even worse, deteriorating in the last 30 years, and it will certainly worsen now.
 

mc_brew

#NotMyPresident
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
5,455
Reputation
2,415
Daps
18,358
Reppin
the black cat is my crown...
what does that bytch ass bill cassidy mean when he says the amerikkkan maternal death rates aren't that bad if you don't count black women...? so in his extraordinarily racist mind it's okay if black women die from childbirth....? yet there are still demonic c00ns saying "both sides are the same"... how any black person can join the klan and be at home with it is beyond me.....
 

barese

Pro
Joined
Dec 11, 2013
Messages
659
Reputation
172
Daps
1,278
The Politico article about Bill Cassidy and the Eric Ding thread all compare the US maternal mortality to other developed countries.


I've just looked at the statistics by country:

USA is 57th on this list, out of 186 countries.

Saying that the US has the worst material mortality among developed countries seems a huge understatement.

It's maternal mortality is behind a lot of third world countries (Kuwait 12 out of 100000 births, Chile 13/100000, Bahrain 14/100000, Tajikistan 17/100000, Saudi Arabia 17/100000), and in line with the worst European countries.



Now it is bound to worsen, so you'll literally end up in the middle of third world countries on this list...
 

hashmander

Hale End
Supporter
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
19,250
Reputation
4,613
Daps
82,242
Reppin
The Arsenal
The Politico article about Bill Cassidy and the Eric Ding thread all compare the US maternal mortality to other developed countries.


I've just looked at the statistics by country:

USA is 57th on this list, out of 186 countries.

Saying that the US has the worst material mortality among developed countries seems a huge understatement.

It's maternal mortality is behind a lot of third world countries (Kuwait 12 out of 100000 births, Chile 13/100000, Bahrain 14/100000, Tajikistan 17/100000, Saudi Arabia 17/100000), and in line with the worst European countries.



Now it is bound to worsen, so you'll literally end up in the middle of third world countries on this list...
kuwait, bahrain, saudi and even chile aren't third world countries.
 

skylove4

Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
18,536
Reputation
4,905
Daps
89,549
I really wish there was a viable Dem waiting in the wings ready to lead the party. It’s time for Biden to step down and Kamala is hated to much to run. We need a progressive Dem who is with the the shyts, who understands everything is now on the table even a violent civil war with these GOP terrorist, and has the stomach for this fight . In theory Biden should be perfect because he’s old, will die soon and should only be concerned about his place history , the right side of history but he’s acting beholding to the status quo like he has decades left. You cannot negotiate with terrorist :demonic:
 
Last edited:
Top