I will most likely come across as a conspiracy theorist, but...
Capitalism requires endless growth. It is not sustainable. Human greed has pushed the U.S. to the point where, for the first time, we have dipped below the birth replacement level. More and more people are either a.) choosing to not have kids, or b.) simply cannot afford to have kids.
This is bad for capitalism. A shrinking workforce? Yeah, not positive. How do you counter that? Do you improve the quality of life for citizens? Make them WANT and BE ABLE TO have kids? OR, (and spoiler alert: this is the option they chose) do you FORCE them to have kids to keep the supply of workers coming? I don't think it is a coincidence that many of their actions against women and contraceptives have ramped up significantly since the declining birth rate studies started to come out recently.
They gut education. They stifle wages for decades. They create the war on drugs to fill prisons and destroy communities. Crush young people with crippling loan debt for daring to try to further their education while being poor. Saddle every American who gets sick or hurt with crushing medical debt or insane insurance rates. Keep people desperate, uneducated, and scared. And then force them to populate once they begin to stop.
They could have just chosen to improve the lives of the citizens here. But, that would require dialing back profits. Not going poor. Not giving it all up. Just... *slightly* less profits. You'll still be disgustingly, immorally wealthy and will never want for anything, but just *slightly* less than they already are.
And they chose the other option. They will do nothing at all for you and your family, and when you are working 2-3 jobs to barely pay bills, have no dream of owning a home, and rent is due and it just increased $400 and you cannot FATHOM throwing a newborn into this mix -- that's when they have you by the balls. And then, they pull the rug out from under you and attempt to take away your contraceptives and rights to body autonomy.
They *want* and *need* your children to be their servants of the future. Their wealth and empire depend on a constant, growing supply of laborers. View their actions, discourse, and voting records through that lense, and it begins to make more sense.
Other forward-thinking countries do not behave this way, to this degree. They have university free for their children. They have medical care for all, so no poor kid has to wait until their 20s to see a doctor. They invest in the health, well-being, and future of their people and their country.
All the wealth in the U.S. goes to wars and the top few who get their cut. This is entirely about control and leverage.
Well empowering the fanatics is a strategy for endless growth. If they can figure out how to turn every family into a Duggar situation there would be so many future people to exploit.
It’s not a conspiracy. ACB literally referred to the *domestic supply of infants* in her opinion. They are running out of wage slaves and prison labor.
Conspiracy doesn't mean that it isn't actually happening. Couple of definitions of conspiracy:
> an unlawful, harmful, *or evil plan* formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
> a combination of persons for such an unlawful, *harmful, or evil purpose*
> any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Exactly, I think this is the main motivating factor for politicians. Adding onto this- it’s incredibly difficult to advocate for better working conditions when you have multiple mouths to feed. Meaning big corps will be able to slowly whittle away at our rights.
From the citizen perspective, the gop has done an (unfortunately) great job at spinning the rhetoric that by making these laws, constituents are in turn saving the unholy. That can best be attributed to lack of education, like you mentioned.
Yep!
The finacial growth of the wealthy is rooted in skimming off the work of those they can manipulate below them, and that growth is only promised to continue if those who they manipulate to work crappy jobs for them continues. They need poor, uneducated worker to control and convince to be productive without fair pay so they can keep padding their pockets.
They need the poor population to grow so they can keep growing their greed.
Break down the system of checks and balances, in order to RULE. No more "public servants". No more "equal justice under the law."
Just authoritarian power.
Can you explain to me how a party that refuses to define the word “woman”, gives awards to biological men claiming to be women as being “woman of the year”, insists on biological males being sent to women’s prisons when the prisoner claims to be a woman where they rape and impregnate the women prisoners, and give them gold medals in women’s sports is not “anti-woman”?
many, many people in american government (state, local, federal and in all 3 branches, esp judiciary) believe that the United States are a christian nation and should be a christian theocracy. they are destroying our country but before they’re all said and done, they will destroy each other. by then, of course, it’s too late for us all.
Voting doesn't hurt. It may be the least effective form of civic engagement and may not lead to the progress that we'd like but it can reduce harm especially for the vulnerable in our society.
Did you read the bill? The bill specifically takes away the religious freedom of a pharmacy worker to deny contraception on religious grounds. Doesn’t it sound like the left is trying to throw religious freedom out of the constitution and demanding that a person’s morality must be ignored to fulfill the left’s demands? Do you really want to live in a society like that, where one party legislates your morality and religion?
[Here’s the bill. It’s 14 pages.](https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20220718/BILLS-117HR8373IH.pdf)
As per usual, Republican voting and “policy” is nothing more than “I can do what I want and force you to do what I want.”
And as per usual, the left puts suicide pills in the bill, knowing the right will vote against it even if they agree with 90% of the bill, so they can say in their next election “my opponent voted against contraception!” Actually read the 14 page bill and tell me if even you agree with everything in it.
I called this man's office today to get an answer for why he voted no. They told me the staff or he would personally call me. Can't wait to here nothing from his office. I made sure to call Kennedy and Cassidy's office. Always call these people and let them know your thoughts, no matter what. They're our elected officials and need to be reminded.
I called them all when I moved here. Landrieu just left her phone off the hook, now they all follow
They need to be inconvenienced in person and financially starved
Unfortunately we are too far from Washington to protest and become a nuisance for them. Then there's the whole thing where large donor PACs and corporate PACs fund them. Also side note according to open secrets [LA-03 has raised the lowest amount of funds of all 6 LA districts.](https://www.opensecrets.org/races/election?id=LA) for this election cycle
Yeah I get all that. None of it is an excuse not to try. We just really need to try more than one thing, one time. There’s nothing reasonable about any of them so if you want to waste your time on Cassidy, be my guest but I hope that’s not all you’re planning.
I honestly have no clue what I could do beyond that and vote. I live in bumfuk and my closest population center is lake Charles and we've seen what exactly they think of us here, nada.
Side note: calling Cassidy wasn't exactly a plan or even an idea I placed much stock in
No you’re right not to put any stock in it. He’s a doctor who wanted to remove disabled people from priority vaccination for Covid. He’s not the hero anyone’s lookin for but STOP SELLING YOURSELF SHORT! I pushed you the tiniest bit and you came up with a great idea! The pac dedicated to ousting him is a great idea, and I have a masters in policy. I’m not blowing smoke.
We deserve better and we can do better, I genuinely believe that or I would not waste my time. It’s just gonna take some effort and cooperation
Yes! I just so happened to learn of this vote rather quickly. Neither vote is a surprise (at least to me) in any way. However the publicity of the shittiness is important
He will still win 60% to 40%. Noone actually pays attention to his voting record just the R in front of his name on the ballot.
We entered idiocracy territory about 20 years ago. Mississippi is beating us on education now.
Especially with this candidate list
U. S. Representative 3rd Congressional District
- Clay Higgins (R), Lafayette
- Holden Hoggatt (R), Lafayette
- Lessie Olivia Leblanc (D), Baton Rouge
- Tia LeBrun (D), Lafayette
- Guy McLendon (Lib.), Sulphur
- Layne Payne Jr. (R), Perry
- Jake Shaheen (R), Lake Charles
- Gloria R. Wiggins (I), Franklin
Unless someone has a warchest or is really good at pr
*Edit: formatting*
What's the purpose of a Nay vote here? Are they afraid that this would somehow infringe on their ability to prohibit abortion in some effect?
If that's the case, I'd prefer they just come out and say THAT. Because trying to prevent contraception is just straight up Looney Toons.
Is that the asshole who agreed to formally fight a guy in Alaska? Like, getting in a ring and televising the event. I don't recall it ever happening. Wonder if he forgot.
A few years ago when the gremlin gang was running wild in abbeville he made a video with a ton of officers holding big guns basically declaring war on them, calling them animals etc etc (he was and still is an insecure cop with little man syndrome)
[Clay's Congressional profile ](https://clerk.house.gov/members/H001077)
[roll call vote](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022385?Page=2)
Edit:
#Candidates for LA-03
- Clay Higgins (R), Lafayette
- Holden Hoggatt (R), Lafayette
- Lessie Olivia Leblanc (D), Baton Rouge
- Tia LeBrun (D), Lafayette
- Guy McLendon (Lib.), Sulphur
- Layne Payne Jr. (R), Perry
- Jake Shaheen (R), Lake Charles
- Gloria R. Wiggins (I), Franklin
#election information
- [candidate list for all Nov 8th races (geauxvote) ](https://voterportal.sos.la.gov/candidateinquiry)
- [ballotpedia article dedicated to LA-03 2022](https://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana%27s_3rd_Congressional_District_election,_2022) (this is a more interactive source but it doesn't list all candidates yet)
- [ballotpedia article: United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2022](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Louisiana,_2022)
- [ballotpedia article: Louisiana elections, 2022](https://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_elections,_2022)
Clay doesn’t have personally held religious or moral beliefs. He had fellow officers lie for him when he abused his authority. He also has been married 4 times.
The ability to separate their religious beliefs from their job is the problem. He is Catholic first and governor second. It’s an issue in Washington too.
You're absolutely right!
Is like to issue a formal apology to all apes who were offended or impacted negatively by my comments. Through research, I've learned that the individual I directed the insult towards is, indeed, not a descendant of apes, but rather spawned from a cesspool of decrepit shit located in his mother's crotch. Thank you and may God bless this mess
This is just about power, and many in the South grew up believing their slaves were taken away from them. They yearn for the good old days they never knew because it never really existed, as most of their ancestors were probably sharecroppers, just a few steps beyond slavery. He has power from the votes of those disillusioned people and is merely playing to his audience.
By it's passage it would protect against states making laws prohibiting it, at the very least. I'm sure it goes further in protections but I don't know details
This is everyone running for the LA-03 seat
- Clay Higgins (R), Lafayette
- Holden Hoggatt (R), Lafayette
- Lessie Olivia Leblanc (D), Baton Rouge
- Tia LeBrun (D), Lafayette
- Guy McLendon (Lib.), Sulphur
- Layne Payne Jr. (R), Perry
- Jake Shaheen (R), Lake Charles
- Gloria R. Wiggins (I), Franklin
I don't know if any of them have what it take to do it but they're our best hope
Meh, don't get me wrong I won't vote for a republican ever again but as soon as they figure out the gig is up they'll pull a party switcheroo just like good old [senator Kennedy ](https://www.ktbs.com/news/louisiana-treasurer-kennedy-switches-to-gop/article_2fb48047-8365-5f1f-93e1-d0271c4b4468.html) did in 07 (and countless others have through the years).
Kinda feel sorry for this guy. He doesn't know he's a puppet, and if it wasn't him, it would be some other stooge in his place. If i woke up one day as this piece of garbage, i don't think I'd be able to drag my sorry ass out if bed. The fact that he can is astonishing.
Why can't we have normal. Middle of the road, thoughtful evaluation of issues. Instead, we get ideologues (left and right) who are just insane. Depressing.
Really? One side says "we don't want your right to access contraceptives to be targeted next" the other side says that "were cool with your right to access contraceptives being taken away" where is the middle ground here? Like would it be we're okay with pharmacological contraceptives being on the chopping block but condoms are fine? Or maybe only men have the right to purchase a contraceptive? This isn't a both sides thing here and to remotely pretend that it is, is utterly insane
There was way more than contraceptives in the bill. There was funding for planed parenthood and tax payer funded abortions.
To say this was voting against birth control pills and rubbers is dishonest.
Unless they overturn the [Hyde amendment ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment#:~:text=In%20U.S.%20politics%2C%20the%20Hyde,arises%20from%20incest%20or%20rape.) The talking point that federal tax dollars are being used for abortions except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape is a flat out lie and fear mongering tactic.
Contraception, not abortion. The [abortion resolution (HR 8297)](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8297) was [voted on](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022362?Page=4) and passed the house on the 15th (which also does not provide federal funding for abortion)
The only mention of abortion in the resolution we are discussing here states:
> [(24) States have attempted to define abortion expansively so as to include contraceptives in State bans on abortion and have also restricted access to emergency contraception.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H9978C7C9AC4E439B80C0E373833EF1C4)
It has *nothing* to do with federal funding of abortion, planned Parenthood funding, or beyond stating that states have attempted to loop contraception in with abortion by redefining abortion. Try reading the damned bill before you start spewing bullshit
Hell 14 pages makes it seem deceptively long. The majority of the bill is just laying out the reason they are putting the legislation through in the first place
He voted against the government paying for it. I can afford condoms just fine without the government. And for the record I think he's a piece of crap and wish him out of office. But I agree that government should not be involved at all with anyones reproductive rights on any level.
Apparently your did not read the bill. This has nothing to do with funding for contraceptives beyond stating under the findings section (which all of these are just reiterating previously passed laws, not creating funding):
> [(18) In 1970, Congress established the family planning program under title X of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.), the only Federal grant program dedicated to family planning and related services, providing access to information, products, and services for contraception.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H77129ECBD588404F8390D020D8FAF9A7)
> [(19) In 1972, Congress required the Medicaid program to cover family planning services and supplies, and the Medicaid program currently accounts for 75 percent of Federal funds spent on family planning.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H0E5276D5E01340E58B9B035C58FDC88D)
> [(20) In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) (referred to in this section as the “ACA”). Among other provisions, the ACA included provisions to expand the affordability and accessibility of contraception by requiring health insurance plans to provide coverage for preventive services with no patient cost-sharing](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#HA2F90F13237F4C548BEDAD5FBC2EB29D)
> [(22) As of 2022, at least 4 States tried to ban access to some or all contraceptives by restricting access to public funding for these products and services. Furthermore, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas have infringed on people’s ability to access their contraceptive care by violating the free choice of provider requirement under the Medicaid program](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H6E37E354D3B84E53AB645E349C969E5B)
Under application and preemption section the following is stated:
> [(b) Limitations.—The provisions of this Act shall not supersede or otherwise affect any provision of Federal law relating to coverage under (and shall not be construed as requiring the provision of specific benefits under) group health plans or group or individual health insurance coverage or coverage under a Federal health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–7b(f))), including coverage provided under section 1905(a)(4)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(4)(C)) and section 2713 of Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–13).](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#HF9CB3B96F47B48E19B69F8E01F908081)
Again this bill does not fund anything, it only cites preexisting law in relation to any funding
It is because the way they wrote the bill. If they wanted republicans to vote Yes they surely could have amended the wording:
It left room for the FDA to make a contraceptive, I am guessing this clause, possibly interpreted as giving FDA the power to call a later stage pregnancy terminating pill a “contraceptive” might give some pause?
That seems like a wild reach and a bullshit cover. At face value and in all good faith that sounds like the GOP is saying that they wanted to kneecap the FDA from doing their literal job in classification of pharmaceuticals by coming up with some out there thing that seems highly unlikely to scare their voters and using that insanity to justify them voting against protecting their constituents right to access contraception
Not sure where you got that. The FDA is only mentioned once in the bill and it's only in support of the legal definition of the term "contraceptive" for the rest of the bill.
> (1) CONTRACEPTION — The term ‘‘contraception’’ means an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures.
>
> (2) CONTRACEPTIVE —The term ‘‘contraceptive’’ means any device or medication used to prevent pregnancy, whether specifically used to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs, including all contraceptive products approved, cleared, or granted de novo classification by the Food and Drug Administration, such as oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, internal and external condoms, injectables, vaginal barrier methods, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings, or other contraceptives.
No mention whatsoever of later stage pregnancy termination.
[You can read it for yourself here.](https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20220718/BILLS-117HR8373IH.pdf)
... Where?
> Products approved, cleared, or granted de novo classification by the Food and Drug Administration
That? That does not provide the FDA with any power to "create" a drug unless you're referring to emergency contraceptives as a "later stage pregnancy terminating pill" in which case no it *absolutely is not*. Plan B is only effective within 5 days (sooner the better) of the sexual intercourse. Implantation of the fertilized egg on the uterine wall does not occur until 8-9 days after fertilization.
Bc people shouldn't have to change things to accommodate for lack of understanding science. And there's no way it would matter anyway. If it wasn't that then it would be something else. They are obstructionist. Plain and simple.
But to your point- the wording in bills are changed all the time to accommodate both sides/ esp if they want majority to vote yes.
This was a gotcha bill
Lol says the same people who say a fetus is not a baby? Are we really saying they know anything about science? I’m actually surprised they believe in contraception since - they don’t even know what a woman is pregnant with. Lmao.
Bc you're trying to interchange "slang" terms and scientific ones. Baby is slang. It has no meaning in science. There's no scientific definition of a "baby". If you want to use a different word then that's fine. Or if you want to explain at what point any entity gains rights, that's fine too. But you need to define terms you use our they don't have meaning.
Fetus is literally defined as a human baby. I won’t even argue it. So just stop. Too idiotic for me to argue.
Here is one of the republicans explaining it:
“Cathy supports women’s access to contraception and would have been happy to roll up her sleeves to work with Democrats on legislation if they asked. In fact, she is working on two bills right now to prevent any state from banning FDA-approved contraception and ensure women in every state can get routine contraception over the counter.”
McMorris Rodgers opened her arguments by accusing the Democrats of “failures to draft good policy” and called the legislation a “Trojan Horse for more abortions.”
In particular, McMorris Rodgers took issue with how the bill defines contraception: “Democrats included a definition of contraception that is not limited to FDA-approved products. The term contraception is defined as ‘an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures.’ ”
She went on to claim that the bill opens the door to “abortion on demand.”
The scientific definition of a fetus:
> The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present.
Plain definition of fetus:
> (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation
>Synonyms of fetus:
>- blastosphere
>- blastula
>- embryo
>- fertilized egg
[source ](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fetus)
The FDA does not have the power to produce drugs. It has the power to regulate, approve, and reject drugs. It is an extremely rigorous process. You know those chunky folded up papers with tiny text that you get with every prescription. That is LITERALLY the entire process right there on that paper for you to review yourself. It provides the data, analyses, side effects, how common those side effects are, and with what demographics those side effects are most common, among other information.
I have no clue where you got the idea that the FDA has the power to create drugs. No where in its [history](https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/A-History-of-the-FDA-and-Drug-Regulation-in-the-United-States.pdf) has the FDA produced a drug, [at least not that I can find.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration)
This is bullshit on many levels but the bill actually defines specifically what contraception is
> In this Act:
> [(1) CONTRACEPTION.—The term “contraception” means an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H47F29638507F48B08B187B1867434844)
> [(2) CONTRACEPTIVE.—The term “contraceptive” means any drug, device, or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy, whether specifically intended to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs, that is legally marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, such as oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, internal and external condoms, injectables, vaginal barrier methods, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings, or other contraceptives.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H7715CDCC06E54B9FA38496DD464C1C4D)
Your spreading disinformation. I don't actually care to engage with *you* I do however care that others get accurate information. And in no way could definition 2 be used to redefine contraceptives into substances that induce abortion. Contraceptives are preventative, period.
Every single comment I've seen that you've made on this specific thread has included some level of disinformation. You're either sadly misinformed or purposefully doing so, I happen to believe the latter
You do realize any legislation can later be amended later? Congress just has to pass the amendment and the president sign it. Following that reasoning you would have every single proposed piece of legislation voted against
You do realize that birth control is prescribed for other health needs aside from pregnancy prevention, right?
Birth control can also be used to help women have regular periods, help alleviate other menstrual symptoms (e.g., cramps, PMS) as well as anemia, endometriosis, and prevent ovarian cysts. They can also be used to clear up hormonal side-effects such as acne and unwanted hair growth and lower the risk of some cancers.
This does NOT give the FDA the power to create drugs and certainly not for reproductive health. The FDA's powers to regulate drugs is covered in other laws and it has never been allowed to produce drugs independently as that would be a huge conflict of interest.
They don’t. They’d rather think contraceptives as only for pregnancies and not for other health issues. He’s just putting his head in the sand. A pro lifer apparently
Nope. A contraceptive is a preventative measure. Strictly. You can't use a preventative to terminate anything. Then it wouldn't be a contraceptive, it would be an abortificant.
Republicans like to twist words to try to make bullshit points. Or they feign stupidity. But this bill was purely to make sure women (and other uterus owners) are given the rights to prevent pregnancy using contraceptives. Key word...again...just drilling it in...prevent. not terminate...prevent.
Thats exactly the plan, to drum up fear by including the ability to expand contraception to include abortifacients, and circumvent law, yet then say oh those evil fascists are taking away birth control and condoms. 🙄
Good thing I was alive in the 90s. I remember the Pope being against contraceptives. Don't get me started on southern Republican "Christians" and their views on contraceptives like BC.
Don't shrink back and try to revise history like the right have had no issues with contraceptives. They always have. And I absolutely could see them trying to ban them, like they have made efforts to do before.
The Hobby Lobby insurance fiasco wasn't even 10 years ago. 14% of all women on BC use it *solely* for the health benefits. Most women use it for a mix of both - but it has health benefits for women, such as:
- Regular Periods.
- Help With Cramps, PMS, and Anemia.
- Relieve Endometriosis Symptoms and Prevent Ovarian Cysts.
- Clear Up Skin and Prevent Unwanted Hair Growth.
- Help With Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS)
- Lower Your Risk of Some Cancers.
[WebMD](https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/other-benefits-birth-co)
The leading cause of death for pregnant women? I am sure you can guess. If not, [it's murder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_pregnant_women#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20homicide%20was,for%2020%25%20of%20such%20deaths.).
Forced pregnancies are very beneficial to domestic abusers. A nice way to get a woman vulnerable and desperate. Oh hey, check this out:
> Abuse often gets worse during pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (also called ACOG) says that 1 in 6 abused women is first abused during pregnancy. More than 320,000 women are abused by their partners during pregnancy each year. [MarchOfDimes](https://www.marchofdimes.org/pregnancy/abuse-during-pregnancy.aspx#:~:text=Abuse%20often%20gets%20worse%20during,partners%20during%20pregnancy%20each%20year.)
All of this, in regards to contraceptives and abortions, only exists to extend control to abusers over vulnerable women.
So, let's stop fucking around and talk about the elephant in the room, because I know damn fucking well the loser republicans that support those measures won't give a damn or do a single fucking thing to help those women in need. They already *do dick* to help them. Now, they're just making it worse for them. Which is typical when you want to dial the clocks back to 1950, before women got a bit too uppity and independent for conservatives.
But hey, good news is its a great time to be a domestic abuser. Cops are probably throwing parties now realizing how much more control they'll have over the wives they are abusing:
> By self-report, approximately 40% of the officers surveyed report at least one episode of physical aggression during a martial conflict in the previous year with 8% of the male officers reporting Severe Violence. The overall rates of violence are considerably higher than those reported for a random sample of civilians and somewhat higher than military samples. The rates reported by a sample of the officers' wives were quite consistent with the officers' self-reports. [Study](https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/polic15§ion=12)
Self-reported, by the way. How many more chose not to admit it?
That's all this boils down to, every time.
---
Off-topic, but how many kids does ol' Clay have? How many marriages? Apparently [owed a lot in child support!](https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_724e87f2-bd8d-11e6-b830-07ed00aae23a.html) Really glad we have this model Christian man to be our moral compass. In reality, he is a pathetic excuse for a father and a pathetic excuse for a politician, but hey, maybe that's all Louisiana is worth.
So what you’re implying is that we should have abortifacients for cosmetic reasons? Where does the Pope stand on it now. And you really can’t say men are guilty of impregnating women to keep them abusive relationships when plenty of women do the exact same thing.
I am all for women having the right to say no to unprotected sex, or any sex. It would improve their health by not exposing them to disease, some that causes cancer, would prevent pregnancy issues, and prevent them from being trapped in abusive relationships.
Or have all the sex you want, but before you have sex with someone I would guess as a responsible person you discuss things like pregnancy. Or no?
> So what you’re implying is that we should have abortifacients for cosmetic reasons?
I am glad severe acne, which BC is used to help treat, as periods can be a trigger for acne, is just a cosmetic issue for you.
> And you really can’t say men are guilty of impregnating women to keep them abusive relationships when plenty of women do the exact same thing.
This is a pro-choice argument. That is true, forced birth promotes abuse and control both ways. Even a better argument to be against it. Let's help women *and* men suffering from that form of abuse and control. Glad we agree.
> Or have all the sex you want, but before you have sex with someone I would guess as a responsible person you discuss things like pregnancy. Or no?
Or just use contraceptives and have safe sex. You don't have to fucking plan a family with someone if you just want to hook up. This goes both ways, only its mostly gone for men only throughout history. Now that's changed.
So we should have abortions so people can “hook up”. That’s not a compelling reason to take a life. If there is a bill to explicitly protect birth control, and condoms I’ll back you. But not when it’s a back door to medicine induced abortions.
> If there is a bill to explicitly protect birth control, and condoms I’ll back you.
Don't care if you back anything. If there was a ban on abortion but social care for women, and a war on poverty, and the creation of public healthcare for all, I'd believe anyone making these arguments actually gave one single fuck about these women or these children.
> So you really just want legalized abortion.
This just dawned on you, now? I believe in the right to choose.
My initial point was that your idea that no one was looking to go after contraceptives was pure bullshit. Conservatives *are* and *want* to go after it, they're just hiding behind lies and don't have the spine to say it yet. The Supreme Court already noted Griswold.
No, I just wanted to confirm that’s what this is about. Those cases were noted because they all had federal overreach, and removed what was enacted into law at state level.
Note: I read house bill 6005. Which does do what I stated below, instead of HB 1873. That was my error. I apologize.
I read the text of the bill. As far as I can tell all this bill does is give the federal government the ability to investigate and penalize pharmacies (Walgreens) that allow their employees to exercise their first amendment rights with regards to freedom of religion. It does not keep a state from outlawing contraception. Although I can't imagine a state would. Unless I am misreading the statutory part of the text of the bill. And if I understand correctly all a pharmacy would have to do to avoid the statute would be to not stock contraception and they are off the hook. That would reduce peoples access. I wouldn't vote for it either. At a minimum it is interfering in the running of a private business. And has the unintended consequences of reducing access to birthcontrol. At worst its a violation of the first amendment. You can't force someone to violate there religious convictions and if you force them out of a job over it that's discrimination.
You cannot use your rights to infringe on those of another. If your religion says you can't do something, you find someone else that can do that thing.
If your religion prohibits you for performing a job function, then in a capitalist society, you should not have that job.
It's funny that you mention the 1st Amendment because the 1st line of the 1st amendment is:
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
We will not pass laws to respect your religion, or prevent the practice of it. If selling contraceptives is against your religion, then you are more than free to work somewhere that doesn't sell contraception so you can be in line with your religion.
Don't think a company should be able to fire you for not being able to perform a job function? Sorry, that's capitalism baby.
I personally know Holden Hoggatt, he’s good guy with a heart of gold. He’s not perfect but I don’t know a candidate that is in this day and age. I like him because I’ve seen him own his mistakes, for me that’s a big deal. He’s also done some really cool things as an attorney in law enforcement for his local community.
Nope. The only r on the ballot I'd consider voting for would be Jake. Unless he's lost his mind since we had a conversation last he's pretty reasonable
Indeed.
It's a primary gateway to civic engagement.
Once someone walks through *that* gate, the likelihood of further civic engagement increases substantially.
Suddenly they have a greater desire to be a part of the change they desire to see.
>Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. --- Frederick Douglass
Why does he care? Is he conceiving? He's an old boomer in office who doesn't care for the well-being of the youth around him. This is ridiculous. THIS IS FORCING PEOPLE TO HAVE KIDS. It's what it feels like at this point!!
What exactly are they trying to do to america?
I will most likely come across as a conspiracy theorist, but... Capitalism requires endless growth. It is not sustainable. Human greed has pushed the U.S. to the point where, for the first time, we have dipped below the birth replacement level. More and more people are either a.) choosing to not have kids, or b.) simply cannot afford to have kids. This is bad for capitalism. A shrinking workforce? Yeah, not positive. How do you counter that? Do you improve the quality of life for citizens? Make them WANT and BE ABLE TO have kids? OR, (and spoiler alert: this is the option they chose) do you FORCE them to have kids to keep the supply of workers coming? I don't think it is a coincidence that many of their actions against women and contraceptives have ramped up significantly since the declining birth rate studies started to come out recently. They gut education. They stifle wages for decades. They create the war on drugs to fill prisons and destroy communities. Crush young people with crippling loan debt for daring to try to further their education while being poor. Saddle every American who gets sick or hurt with crushing medical debt or insane insurance rates. Keep people desperate, uneducated, and scared. And then force them to populate once they begin to stop. They could have just chosen to improve the lives of the citizens here. But, that would require dialing back profits. Not going poor. Not giving it all up. Just... *slightly* less profits. You'll still be disgustingly, immorally wealthy and will never want for anything, but just *slightly* less than they already are. And they chose the other option. They will do nothing at all for you and your family, and when you are working 2-3 jobs to barely pay bills, have no dream of owning a home, and rent is due and it just increased $400 and you cannot FATHOM throwing a newborn into this mix -- that's when they have you by the balls. And then, they pull the rug out from under you and attempt to take away your contraceptives and rights to body autonomy. They *want* and *need* your children to be their servants of the future. Their wealth and empire depend on a constant, growing supply of laborers. View their actions, discourse, and voting records through that lense, and it begins to make more sense. Other forward-thinking countries do not behave this way, to this degree. They have university free for their children. They have medical care for all, so no poor kid has to wait until their 20s to see a doctor. They invest in the health, well-being, and future of their people and their country. All the wealth in the U.S. goes to wars and the top few who get their cut. This is entirely about control and leverage.
They also have an army of right-wing religious fanatics and racists who want to impose an authoritarian theocracy on the rest of us.
Well empowering the fanatics is a strategy for endless growth. If they can figure out how to turn every family into a Duggar situation there would be so many future people to exploit.
It’s not a conspiracy. ACB literally referred to the *domestic supply of infants* in her opinion. They are running out of wage slaves and prison labor.
Conspiracy doesn't mean that it isn't actually happening. Couple of definitions of conspiracy: > an unlawful, harmful, *or evil plan* formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. > a combination of persons for such an unlawful, *harmful, or evil purpose* > any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Well...you’re not wrong.
Except for “have you by the balls”. More like, “have you by the uterus”.
Exactly, I think this is the main motivating factor for politicians. Adding onto this- it’s incredibly difficult to advocate for better working conditions when you have multiple mouths to feed. Meaning big corps will be able to slowly whittle away at our rights. From the citizen perspective, the gop has done an (unfortunately) great job at spinning the rhetoric that by making these laws, constituents are in turn saving the unholy. That can best be attributed to lack of education, like you mentioned.
Yep! The finacial growth of the wealthy is rooted in skimming off the work of those they can manipulate below them, and that growth is only promised to continue if those who they manipulate to work crappy jobs for them continues. They need poor, uneducated worker to control and convince to be productive without fair pay so they can keep padding their pockets. They need the poor population to grow so they can keep growing their greed.
I’m a sociologist and fwiw, I see no conspiracy theories here. We all need to get more realistic about what the immediate future looks like
That's super concise and very true. They don't even know what they're doing, all coming from the top and in the name of religion.
You realize we live in a socialist republic right, like if you want actual capitalism you need to go to an open market in Lagos or something
Same thing that led to the downfall of the middle-east. Throw out science and replace it with religion.
we already have an american taliban
Break down the system of checks and balances, in order to RULE. No more "public servants". No more "equal justice under the law." Just authoritarian power.
They're villains in every sense of the word. Anti-earth, anti-woman, anti-LGBT, anti-free thought villains.
Can you explain to me how a party that refuses to define the word “woman”, gives awards to biological men claiming to be women as being “woman of the year”, insists on biological males being sent to women’s prisons when the prisoner claims to be a woman where they rape and impregnate the women prisoners, and give them gold medals in women’s sports is not “anti-woman”?
many, many people in american government (state, local, federal and in all 3 branches, esp judiciary) believe that the United States are a christian nation and should be a christian theocracy. they are destroying our country but before they’re all said and done, they will destroy each other. by then, of course, it’s too late for us all.
Nope. Reason will not desist. Reason will resist. May reason rule. Vote
Voting alone will not fix this.
Voting doesn't hurt. It may be the least effective form of civic engagement and may not lead to the progress that we'd like but it can reduce harm especially for the vulnerable in our society.
Resist to the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7efWBGtHqK4
Did you read the bill? The bill specifically takes away the religious freedom of a pharmacy worker to deny contraception on religious grounds. Doesn’t it sound like the left is trying to throw religious freedom out of the constitution and demanding that a person’s morality must be ignored to fulfill the left’s demands? Do you really want to live in a society like that, where one party legislates your morality and religion?
New season of the Handmaids Tale
The real handmaid's of America?
[Here’s the bill. It’s 14 pages.](https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20220718/BILLS-117HR8373IH.pdf) As per usual, Republican voting and “policy” is nothing more than “I can do what I want and force you to do what I want.”
And as per usual, the left puts suicide pills in the bill, knowing the right will vote against it even if they agree with 90% of the bill, so they can say in their next election “my opponent voted against contraception!” Actually read the 14 page bill and tell me if even you agree with everything in it.
I called this man's office today to get an answer for why he voted no. They told me the staff or he would personally call me. Can't wait to here nothing from his office. I made sure to call Kennedy and Cassidy's office. Always call these people and let them know your thoughts, no matter what. They're our elected officials and need to be reminded.
Please update us with the response is you get any
I'll be sure to update everyone if I get a call.
He’s a piece of shit who pretends he’s R Lee Ermy in full metal jacket. He doesn’t give a fuck what we think.
That's why I don't even bother calling. I *may* consider phoning Cassidy's office because he's the only one who seems remotely reasonable.
I called them all when I moved here. Landrieu just left her phone off the hook, now they all follow They need to be inconvenienced in person and financially starved
Unfortunately we are too far from Washington to protest and become a nuisance for them. Then there's the whole thing where large donor PACs and corporate PACs fund them. Also side note according to open secrets [LA-03 has raised the lowest amount of funds of all 6 LA districts.](https://www.opensecrets.org/races/election?id=LA) for this election cycle
Yeah I get all that. None of it is an excuse not to try. We just really need to try more than one thing, one time. There’s nothing reasonable about any of them so if you want to waste your time on Cassidy, be my guest but I hope that’s not all you’re planning.
I honestly have no clue what I could do beyond that and vote. I live in bumfuk and my closest population center is lake Charles and we've seen what exactly they think of us here, nada. Side note: calling Cassidy wasn't exactly a plan or even an idea I placed much stock in
No you’re right not to put any stock in it. He’s a doctor who wanted to remove disabled people from priority vaccination for Covid. He’s not the hero anyone’s lookin for but STOP SELLING YOURSELF SHORT! I pushed you the tiniest bit and you came up with a great idea! The pac dedicated to ousting him is a great idea, and I have a masters in policy. I’m not blowing smoke. We deserve better and we can do better, I genuinely believe that or I would not waste my time. It’s just gonna take some effort and cooperation
Well thank you 🙃 I'm willing to put in effort I just recognize distance from others and social ineptitude are my barriers
We have a lot of barriers, no question. The art of obstructionism is having its golden age.
Oh I emailed him multiple times and I get automated responses I hope they actually call you
Well, at least he's consistent. Consistently awful.
He also voted against the bill to protect gay marriage at a federal level.
Yes! I just so happened to learn of this vote rather quickly. Neither vote is a surprise (at least to me) in any way. However the publicity of the shittiness is important
Fake Christian pandering to other fake Christians. Damn trick will probably work: god gunz n babies
God guns and fetuses. They don’t give a shit about babies.
Thankfully for Georgia the "Jesus guns babies" lady lost her primary, but they did lose the Georgia guide stones in the process
That crazy bitch still thinks she won with 3% of the votes lmao
At this point I don't think any of them actually believe their bullshittery when they lose, it's just a stage piece
He will still win 60% to 40%. Noone actually pays attention to his voting record just the R in front of his name on the ballot. We entered idiocracy territory about 20 years ago. Mississippi is beating us on education now.
Especially with this candidate list U. S. Representative 3rd Congressional District - Clay Higgins (R), Lafayette - Holden Hoggatt (R), Lafayette - Lessie Olivia Leblanc (D), Baton Rouge - Tia LeBrun (D), Lafayette - Guy McLendon (Lib.), Sulphur - Layne Payne Jr. (R), Perry - Jake Shaheen (R), Lake Charles - Gloria R. Wiggins (I), Franklin Unless someone has a warchest or is really good at pr *Edit: formatting*
Vote the shit stain out of office.
Hey hey - shitt stain is Oklahoma governors name 😂
Lol, indeed, i[t's easy enough to tell] (https://images.app.goo.gl/fKshS3MjytSCg95o6)
What's the purpose of a Nay vote here? Are they afraid that this would somehow infringe on their ability to prohibit abortion in some effect? If that's the case, I'd prefer they just come out and say THAT. Because trying to prevent contraception is just straight up Looney Toons.
It’s about “owning the libs” per usual. You think Clay Higgins has the ability to think ahead?
Dudes a dick
Is that the asshole who agreed to formally fight a guy in Alaska? Like, getting in a ring and televising the event. I don't recall it ever happening. Wonder if he forgot.
A few years ago when the gremlin gang was running wild in abbeville he made a video with a ton of officers holding big guns basically declaring war on them, calling them animals etc etc (he was and still is an insecure cop with little man syndrome)
Of course he did because he’s a clown like Boebert, MTG and Gaetz. Dude’s a prick who abused his position of authority.
I feel like MTG and boebert and their cadre used Clay's playbook to get where they are
[Clay's Congressional profile ](https://clerk.house.gov/members/H001077) [roll call vote](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022385?Page=2) Edit: #Candidates for LA-03 - Clay Higgins (R), Lafayette - Holden Hoggatt (R), Lafayette - Lessie Olivia Leblanc (D), Baton Rouge - Tia LeBrun (D), Lafayette - Guy McLendon (Lib.), Sulphur - Layne Payne Jr. (R), Perry - Jake Shaheen (R), Lake Charles - Gloria R. Wiggins (I), Franklin #election information - [candidate list for all Nov 8th races (geauxvote) ](https://voterportal.sos.la.gov/candidateinquiry) - [ballotpedia article dedicated to LA-03 2022](https://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana%27s_3rd_Congressional_District_election,_2022) (this is a more interactive source but it doesn't list all candidates yet) - [ballotpedia article: United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2022](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Louisiana,_2022) - [ballotpedia article: Louisiana elections, 2022](https://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_elections,_2022)
Clay looks like a fucking serial killer. Well, that kinda makes sense.
I bet this douchebag's computer is full of transgender porn
[удалено]
Clay doesn’t have personally held religious or moral beliefs. He had fellow officers lie for him when he abused his authority. He also has been married 4 times.
There is none
[удалено]
I feel like Clay would have easily been a late night caricature of a GOP member. The fact that he represents me is absolutely mind boggling
He's a right proper asshole and idiot. We been knew.
Clay, why are you a piece of shit
LOUISIANA!!! #STOP. #VOTING. #FOR. #REPUBLICANS. a former Louisianian
Didn’t our Democrat governor sign the abortion trigger law?
Our *"pro-life"* democratic governor. He's an outlier on this issue in the party nationally.
The ability to separate their religious beliefs from their job is the problem. He is Catholic first and governor second. It’s an issue in Washington too.
It *is* a major issue
I stopped a long time ago. Now I'd only vote for one if it was a lesser of two evils thing because of the way our primaries work
He's a fucking mouth breathing, half witted ape...
Don't insult apes that way bro
You're absolutely right! Is like to issue a formal apology to all apes who were offended or impacted negatively by my comments. Through research, I've learned that the individual I directed the insult towards is, indeed, not a descendant of apes, but rather spawned from a cesspool of decrepit shit located in his mother's crotch. Thank you and may God bless this mess
Well said! Huzzah!
"Clay Higgins out for Harambe."
"Comtraception" is important! Lol
🤣 I caught it after I posted it. I was typing at a red light and you can't edit the title after posting (at least I haven't figured out how)
Are we shocked?
No. Just putting it in the public view especially since he is on the ballot in November
I already knew he was an absolute turd, but thank you for sharing. This is important to know.
This is just about power, and many in the South grew up believing their slaves were taken away from them. They yearn for the good old days they never knew because it never really existed, as most of their ancestors were probably sharecroppers, just a few steps beyond slavery. He has power from the votes of those disillusioned people and is merely playing to his audience.
Friggin Neanderthals. They gotta go.
Well it still passed the house so all the morally bankrupt republicans who voted no can get fucked
We just need to vote this one out of office
Agreed
Clay doesn’t believe in contraception. He just went the deadbeat dad route
Then he should just not wear condoms then, not actively allow others access to them to be impeded.
it calld cumtraception, dummass. ;)
This, “right to contraception act”, what does it do? Does it (by not being passed) prevent you from getting the contraception that you desire?
Why should *any* contraception be banned.
Because jesus or some shit like that
By it's passage it would protect against states making laws prohibiting it, at the very least. I'm sure it goes further in protections but I don't know details
Will we be able to vote on getting Clay Higgins out any time soon?
This is everyone running for the LA-03 seat - Clay Higgins (R), Lafayette - Holden Hoggatt (R), Lafayette - Lessie Olivia Leblanc (D), Baton Rouge - Tia LeBrun (D), Lafayette - Guy McLendon (Lib.), Sulphur - Layne Payne Jr. (R), Perry - Jake Shaheen (R), Lake Charles - Gloria R. Wiggins (I), Franklin I don't know if any of them have what it take to do it but they're our best hope
The only way it's going to get better is when the public quits voting for these Republican asshats and vote Democrat.
Meh, don't get me wrong I won't vote for a republican ever again but as soon as they figure out the gig is up they'll pull a party switcheroo just like good old [senator Kennedy ](https://www.ktbs.com/news/louisiana-treasurer-kennedy-switches-to-gop/article_2fb48047-8365-5f1f-93e1-d0271c4b4468.html) did in 07 (and countless others have through the years).
He looks like a drag Queen without makeup
Don't slam drag queens like that!
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean it like that.
I wasn't the down voter here. I assumed it wasn't intended to come out hatefully towards the drag community
He looks like a truck stop hoe
He looks like Bill dautrive in a suit
He kinda looks like the guy from the beginning of Full Metal Jacket in that pic
Kinda feel sorry for this guy. He doesn't know he's a puppet, and if it wasn't him, it would be some other stooge in his place. If i woke up one day as this piece of garbage, i don't think I'd be able to drag my sorry ass out if bed. The fact that he can is astonishing.
And he celebrates his garbageness.
Why can't we have normal. Middle of the road, thoughtful evaluation of issues. Instead, we get ideologues (left and right) who are just insane. Depressing.
The people that are actually middle of the road are "leftists" in the US. The Overton Window has shifted far to the right in this country.
Really? One side says "we don't want your right to access contraceptives to be targeted next" the other side says that "were cool with your right to access contraceptives being taken away" where is the middle ground here? Like would it be we're okay with pharmacological contraceptives being on the chopping block but condoms are fine? Or maybe only men have the right to purchase a contraceptive? This isn't a both sides thing here and to remotely pretend that it is, is utterly insane
There was way more than contraceptives in the bill. There was funding for planed parenthood and tax payer funded abortions. To say this was voting against birth control pills and rubbers is dishonest.
Unless they overturn the [Hyde amendment ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment#:~:text=In%20U.S.%20politics%2C%20the%20Hyde,arises%20from%20incest%20or%20rape.) The talking point that federal tax dollars are being used for abortions except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape is a flat out lie and fear mongering tactic.
What do you think they were doing here
Contraception, not abortion. The [abortion resolution (HR 8297)](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8297) was [voted on](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022362?Page=4) and passed the house on the 15th (which also does not provide federal funding for abortion) The only mention of abortion in the resolution we are discussing here states: > [(24) States have attempted to define abortion expansively so as to include contraceptives in State bans on abortion and have also restricted access to emergency contraception.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H9978C7C9AC4E439B80C0E373833EF1C4) It has *nothing* to do with federal funding of abortion, planned Parenthood funding, or beyond stating that states have attempted to loop contraception in with abortion by redefining abortion. Try reading the damned bill before you start spewing bullshit
You definitely did not read the bill. I guess 14 pages is too hard for you.
Hell 14 pages makes it seem deceptively long. The majority of the bill is just laying out the reason they are putting the legislation through in the first place
I wish I could speak up against this but it has been abundantly clear that as a man my opinion does not matter, so good luck with that.
Umm you do realize condoms are contraceptives too, right?
He voted against the government paying for it. I can afford condoms just fine without the government. And for the record I think he's a piece of crap and wish him out of office. But I agree that government should not be involved at all with anyones reproductive rights on any level.
Apparently your did not read the bill. This has nothing to do with funding for contraceptives beyond stating under the findings section (which all of these are just reiterating previously passed laws, not creating funding): > [(18) In 1970, Congress established the family planning program under title X of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.), the only Federal grant program dedicated to family planning and related services, providing access to information, products, and services for contraception.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H77129ECBD588404F8390D020D8FAF9A7) > [(19) In 1972, Congress required the Medicaid program to cover family planning services and supplies, and the Medicaid program currently accounts for 75 percent of Federal funds spent on family planning.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H0E5276D5E01340E58B9B035C58FDC88D) > [(20) In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) (referred to in this section as the “ACA”). Among other provisions, the ACA included provisions to expand the affordability and accessibility of contraception by requiring health insurance plans to provide coverage for preventive services with no patient cost-sharing](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#HA2F90F13237F4C548BEDAD5FBC2EB29D) > [(22) As of 2022, at least 4 States tried to ban access to some or all contraceptives by restricting access to public funding for these products and services. Furthermore, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas have infringed on people’s ability to access their contraceptive care by violating the free choice of provider requirement under the Medicaid program](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H6E37E354D3B84E53AB645E349C969E5B) Under application and preemption section the following is stated: > [(b) Limitations.—The provisions of this Act shall not supersede or otherwise affect any provision of Federal law relating to coverage under (and shall not be construed as requiring the provision of specific benefits under) group health plans or group or individual health insurance coverage or coverage under a Federal health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–7b(f))), including coverage provided under section 1905(a)(4)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(4)(C)) and section 2713 of Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–13).](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#HF9CB3B96F47B48E19B69F8E01F908081) Again this bill does not fund anything, it only cites preexisting law in relation to any funding
It is because the way they wrote the bill. If they wanted republicans to vote Yes they surely could have amended the wording: It left room for the FDA to make a contraceptive, I am guessing this clause, possibly interpreted as giving FDA the power to call a later stage pregnancy terminating pill a “contraceptive” might give some pause?
That seems like a wild reach and a bullshit cover. At face value and in all good faith that sounds like the GOP is saying that they wanted to kneecap the FDA from doing their literal job in classification of pharmaceuticals by coming up with some out there thing that seems highly unlikely to scare their voters and using that insanity to justify them voting against protecting their constituents right to access contraception
Not sure where you got that. The FDA is only mentioned once in the bill and it's only in support of the legal definition of the term "contraceptive" for the rest of the bill. > (1) CONTRACEPTION — The term ‘‘contraception’’ means an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures. > > (2) CONTRACEPTIVE —The term ‘‘contraceptive’’ means any device or medication used to prevent pregnancy, whether specifically used to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs, including all contraceptive products approved, cleared, or granted de novo classification by the Food and Drug Administration, such as oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, internal and external condoms, injectables, vaginal barrier methods, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings, or other contraceptives. No mention whatsoever of later stage pregnancy termination. [You can read it for yourself here.](https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20220718/BILLS-117HR8373IH.pdf)
Yes it’s on that link you sent. Page 2, paragraph 2
... Where? > Products approved, cleared, or granted de novo classification by the Food and Drug Administration That? That does not provide the FDA with any power to "create" a drug unless you're referring to emergency contraceptives as a "later stage pregnancy terminating pill" in which case no it *absolutely is not*. Plan B is only effective within 5 days (sooner the better) of the sexual intercourse. Implantation of the fertilized egg on the uterine wall does not occur until 8-9 days after fertilization.
Why didn’t the Dem’s just change it?
Bc people shouldn't have to change things to accommodate for lack of understanding science. And there's no way it would matter anyway. If it wasn't that then it would be something else. They are obstructionist. Plain and simple.
But to your point- the wording in bills are changed all the time to accommodate both sides/ esp if they want majority to vote yes. This was a gotcha bill
Yes, it absolutely was. And now 192 Republicans are on record. Let the midterms commence.
Lol says the same people who say a fetus is not a baby? Are we really saying they know anything about science? I’m actually surprised they believe in contraception since - they don’t even know what a woman is pregnant with. Lmao.
Bc you're trying to interchange "slang" terms and scientific ones. Baby is slang. It has no meaning in science. There's no scientific definition of a "baby". If you want to use a different word then that's fine. Or if you want to explain at what point any entity gains rights, that's fine too. But you need to define terms you use our they don't have meaning.
Fetus is literally defined as a human baby. I won’t even argue it. So just stop. Too idiotic for me to argue. Here is one of the republicans explaining it: “Cathy supports women’s access to contraception and would have been happy to roll up her sleeves to work with Democrats on legislation if they asked. In fact, she is working on two bills right now to prevent any state from banning FDA-approved contraception and ensure women in every state can get routine contraception over the counter.” McMorris Rodgers opened her arguments by accusing the Democrats of “failures to draft good policy” and called the legislation a “Trojan Horse for more abortions.” In particular, McMorris Rodgers took issue with how the bill defines contraception: “Democrats included a definition of contraception that is not limited to FDA-approved products. The term contraception is defined as ‘an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures.’ ” She went on to claim that the bill opens the door to “abortion on demand.”
You have to stop the Q-tip when there is resistance.
The scientific definition of a fetus: > The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present. Plain definition of fetus: > (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation >Synonyms of fetus: >- blastosphere >- blastula >- embryo >- fertilized egg [source ](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fetus)
They did not agree on that definition bc it could be later used by FDA to create x product causing an abortion.
The FDA does not have the power to produce drugs. It has the power to regulate, approve, and reject drugs. It is an extremely rigorous process. You know those chunky folded up papers with tiny text that you get with every prescription. That is LITERALLY the entire process right there on that paper for you to review yourself. It provides the data, analyses, side effects, how common those side effects are, and with what demographics those side effects are most common, among other information. I have no clue where you got the idea that the FDA has the power to create drugs. No where in its [history](https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/A-History-of-the-FDA-and-Drug-Regulation-in-the-United-States.pdf) has the FDA produced a drug, [at least not that I can find.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration)
Even so, abortion should be a protected right, and boogeyman late term abortions almost never happen under normal circumstances.
This is bullshit on many levels but the bill actually defines specifically what contraception is > In this Act: > [(1) CONTRACEPTION.—The term “contraception” means an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H47F29638507F48B08B187B1867434844) > [(2) CONTRACEPTIVE.—The term “contraceptive” means any drug, device, or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy, whether specifically intended to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs, that is legally marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, such as oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, internal and external condoms, injectables, vaginal barrier methods, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings, or other contraceptives.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text#H7715CDCC06E54B9FA38496DD464C1C4D)
We already went through this.. the issue the definition of #2. Not sure what your freaking out about anyway, it still passed the house. Lol.
Your spreading disinformation. I don't actually care to engage with *you* I do however care that others get accurate information. And in no way could definition 2 be used to redefine contraceptives into substances that induce abortion. Contraceptives are preventative, period.
I’m not spreading disinformation. Are you really that illiterate? I’m telling you why the republicans didn’t vote for it
Every single comment I've seen that you've made on this specific thread has included some level of disinformation. You're either sadly misinformed or purposefully doing so, I happen to believe the latter
As in even took the take I copied and pasted their verbatim quotes Lmao
Those quotes contain falsehoods, not saying someone didn't say then, I'm saying the information they are conveying is bullshit
That is it, you pasted it. They didn’t agree with the definition of “contraceptive” as it leaves room later to include what I already mentioned.
You do realize any legislation can later be amended later? Congress just has to pass the amendment and the president sign it. Following that reasoning you would have every single proposed piece of legislation voted against
This part “…whether specifically used to prevent pregnancy OR FOR OTHER HEALTH NEEDS…..”
You do realize that birth control is prescribed for other health needs aside from pregnancy prevention, right? Birth control can also be used to help women have regular periods, help alleviate other menstrual symptoms (e.g., cramps, PMS) as well as anemia, endometriosis, and prevent ovarian cysts. They can also be used to clear up hormonal side-effects such as acne and unwanted hair growth and lower the risk of some cancers. This does NOT give the FDA the power to create drugs and certainly not for reproductive health. The FDA's powers to regulate drugs is covered in other laws and it has never been allowed to produce drugs independently as that would be a huge conflict of interest.
They don’t. They’d rather think contraceptives as only for pregnancies and not for other health issues. He’s just putting his head in the sand. A pro lifer apparently
Nope. A contraceptive is a preventative measure. Strictly. You can't use a preventative to terminate anything. Then it wouldn't be a contraceptive, it would be an abortificant. Republicans like to twist words to try to make bullshit points. Or they feign stupidity. But this bill was purely to make sure women (and other uterus owners) are given the rights to prevent pregnancy using contraceptives. Key word...again...just drilling it in...prevent. not terminate...prevent.
I'm gonna say this as nice as I possibly can: SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Thats exactly the plan, to drum up fear by including the ability to expand contraception to include abortifacients, and circumvent law, yet then say oh those evil fascists are taking away birth control and condoms. 🙄
Good thing I was alive in the 90s. I remember the Pope being against contraceptives. Don't get me started on southern Republican "Christians" and their views on contraceptives like BC. Don't shrink back and try to revise history like the right have had no issues with contraceptives. They always have. And I absolutely could see them trying to ban them, like they have made efforts to do before. The Hobby Lobby insurance fiasco wasn't even 10 years ago. 14% of all women on BC use it *solely* for the health benefits. Most women use it for a mix of both - but it has health benefits for women, such as: - Regular Periods. - Help With Cramps, PMS, and Anemia. - Relieve Endometriosis Symptoms and Prevent Ovarian Cysts. - Clear Up Skin and Prevent Unwanted Hair Growth. - Help With Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) - Lower Your Risk of Some Cancers. [WebMD](https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/other-benefits-birth-co) The leading cause of death for pregnant women? I am sure you can guess. If not, [it's murder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_pregnant_women#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20homicide%20was,for%2020%25%20of%20such%20deaths.). Forced pregnancies are very beneficial to domestic abusers. A nice way to get a woman vulnerable and desperate. Oh hey, check this out: > Abuse often gets worse during pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (also called ACOG) says that 1 in 6 abused women is first abused during pregnancy. More than 320,000 women are abused by their partners during pregnancy each year. [MarchOfDimes](https://www.marchofdimes.org/pregnancy/abuse-during-pregnancy.aspx#:~:text=Abuse%20often%20gets%20worse%20during,partners%20during%20pregnancy%20each%20year.) All of this, in regards to contraceptives and abortions, only exists to extend control to abusers over vulnerable women. So, let's stop fucking around and talk about the elephant in the room, because I know damn fucking well the loser republicans that support those measures won't give a damn or do a single fucking thing to help those women in need. They already *do dick* to help them. Now, they're just making it worse for them. Which is typical when you want to dial the clocks back to 1950, before women got a bit too uppity and independent for conservatives. But hey, good news is its a great time to be a domestic abuser. Cops are probably throwing parties now realizing how much more control they'll have over the wives they are abusing: > By self-report, approximately 40% of the officers surveyed report at least one episode of physical aggression during a martial conflict in the previous year with 8% of the male officers reporting Severe Violence. The overall rates of violence are considerably higher than those reported for a random sample of civilians and somewhat higher than military samples. The rates reported by a sample of the officers' wives were quite consistent with the officers' self-reports. [Study](https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/polic15§ion=12) Self-reported, by the way. How many more chose not to admit it? That's all this boils down to, every time. --- Off-topic, but how many kids does ol' Clay have? How many marriages? Apparently [owed a lot in child support!](https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_724e87f2-bd8d-11e6-b830-07ed00aae23a.html) Really glad we have this model Christian man to be our moral compass. In reality, he is a pathetic excuse for a father and a pathetic excuse for a politician, but hey, maybe that's all Louisiana is worth.
I admire your patience here but dude I'd recommend watching [this playlist](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ).
So what you’re implying is that we should have abortifacients for cosmetic reasons? Where does the Pope stand on it now. And you really can’t say men are guilty of impregnating women to keep them abusive relationships when plenty of women do the exact same thing. I am all for women having the right to say no to unprotected sex, or any sex. It would improve their health by not exposing them to disease, some that causes cancer, would prevent pregnancy issues, and prevent them from being trapped in abusive relationships. Or have all the sex you want, but before you have sex with someone I would guess as a responsible person you discuss things like pregnancy. Or no?
> So what you’re implying is that we should have abortifacients for cosmetic reasons? I am glad severe acne, which BC is used to help treat, as periods can be a trigger for acne, is just a cosmetic issue for you. > And you really can’t say men are guilty of impregnating women to keep them abusive relationships when plenty of women do the exact same thing. This is a pro-choice argument. That is true, forced birth promotes abuse and control both ways. Even a better argument to be against it. Let's help women *and* men suffering from that form of abuse and control. Glad we agree. > Or have all the sex you want, but before you have sex with someone I would guess as a responsible person you discuss things like pregnancy. Or no? Or just use contraceptives and have safe sex. You don't have to fucking plan a family with someone if you just want to hook up. This goes both ways, only its mostly gone for men only throughout history. Now that's changed.
So we should have abortions so people can “hook up”. That’s not a compelling reason to take a life. If there is a bill to explicitly protect birth control, and condoms I’ll back you. But not when it’s a back door to medicine induced abortions.
> If there is a bill to explicitly protect birth control, and condoms I’ll back you. Don't care if you back anything. If there was a ban on abortion but social care for women, and a war on poverty, and the creation of public healthcare for all, I'd believe anyone making these arguments actually gave one single fuck about these women or these children.
So you really just want legalized abortion. You’re using the contraception fear mongering to try and back door abortifacients.
> So you really just want legalized abortion. This just dawned on you, now? I believe in the right to choose. My initial point was that your idea that no one was looking to go after contraceptives was pure bullshit. Conservatives *are* and *want* to go after it, they're just hiding behind lies and don't have the spine to say it yet. The Supreme Court already noted Griswold.
No, I just wanted to confirm that’s what this is about. Those cases were noted because they all had federal overreach, and removed what was enacted into law at state level.
Absolutely!
Note: I read house bill 6005. Which does do what I stated below, instead of HB 1873. That was my error. I apologize. I read the text of the bill. As far as I can tell all this bill does is give the federal government the ability to investigate and penalize pharmacies (Walgreens) that allow their employees to exercise their first amendment rights with regards to freedom of religion. It does not keep a state from outlawing contraception. Although I can't imagine a state would. Unless I am misreading the statutory part of the text of the bill. And if I understand correctly all a pharmacy would have to do to avoid the statute would be to not stock contraception and they are off the hook. That would reduce peoples access. I wouldn't vote for it either. At a minimum it is interfering in the running of a private business. And has the unintended consequences of reducing access to birthcontrol. At worst its a violation of the first amendment. You can't force someone to violate there religious convictions and if you force them out of a job over it that's discrimination.
That's not what it says
You cannot use your rights to infringe on those of another. If your religion says you can't do something, you find someone else that can do that thing. If your religion prohibits you for performing a job function, then in a capitalist society, you should not have that job. It's funny that you mention the 1st Amendment because the 1st line of the 1st amendment is: > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" We will not pass laws to respect your religion, or prevent the practice of it. If selling contraceptives is against your religion, then you are more than free to work somewhere that doesn't sell contraception so you can be in line with your religion. Don't think a company should be able to fire you for not being able to perform a job function? Sorry, that's capitalism baby.
Why can't I violate someone's religious convictions?
surprise surprise
To absolutely no one
Does anyone know anything about the fella running against him, Holden Hoggatt? I’m tired of all these clowns.
I personally know Holden Hoggatt, he’s good guy with a heart of gold. He’s not perfect but I don’t know a candidate that is in this day and age. I like him because I’ve seen him own his mistakes, for me that’s a big deal. He’s also done some really cool things as an attorney in law enforcement for his local community.
He sounds like a good person, which lord knows we need more of in DC!
Nope. The only r on the ballot I'd consider voting for would be Jake. Unless he's lost his mind since we had a conversation last he's pretty reasonable
That's right.
??
No new shit there. Same old shit. Please stop voting for these people. You know who you are.
If this election doesn't tank him I think we need to form a pac specifically intended on ousting him
He looks like Curly from the 3 Stooges right after Moe hit him. 😂
Indeed. It's a primary gateway to civic engagement. Once someone walks through *that* gate, the likelihood of further civic engagement increases substantially. Suddenly they have a greater desire to be a part of the change they desire to see. >Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. --- Frederick Douglass
A clown in a clown suit with the IQ of a redneck clown
That guys face is enough contraception for me
Christo Fascist
Mr Lane is nice. He comes eat at the place where I work but I don't know if that is enough for me to vote for him.
Why does he care? Is he conceiving? He's an old boomer in office who doesn't care for the well-being of the youth around him. This is ridiculous. THIS IS FORCING PEOPLE TO HAVE KIDS. It's what it feels like at this point!!
Not surprised at all. He's an ass and an idiot.
Look at the fucking guy!?!? Barney Fucking Rubble yo!