What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2026 Elections: To the Midterms and Beyond!

psych said:
ticapnews would tell you he’s done more than anyone on here. And maybe he’s right. I, for one, think this is the wrong time to divide with the enemy directly in front of us.
Click to expand...
Nah. All I've done is work on dozens of campaigns in five states over the course of 30+ years; been the chair of my town Democratic Party, served on the county committee and been to a half dozen state conventions. Was a candidate myself until a cancer diagnosis knocked me out of the campaign. Cancer that was found, ironically, when I passed out at a George Floyd protest - one of hundreds I've attended over the years.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here who have done more.
 
ticapnews said:
Nah. All I've done is work on dozens of campaigns in five states over the course of 30+ years; been the chair of my town Democratic Party, served on the county committee and been to a half dozen state conventions. Was a candidate myself until a cancer diagnosis knocked me out of the campaign. Cancer that was found, ironically, when I passed out at a George Floyd protest - one of hundreds I've attended over the years.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here who have done more.
Click to expand...
I know I haven't.
 
There were about 1000 volunteers on the conference call with the Maine Democratic Party last night. Many turned up just to hear from Troy Jackson because about half left as soon as he was done speaking. There will be canvassing every weekend and phone banking every Thursday during this Voter persuasaion and ID phase. The GOTV drive will start when absentee ballots are available in October. Speaking of, if you're a Maine voter you can request an absentee ballot now.

All this assumes there are meaningful elections in November...
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Do you require more evidence than this? I don't.

bsky.app

The Washington Post (@washingtonpost.com)

Over the past few weeks, President Trump has made it clear that he will not take Supreme Court decisions as the final word. “Trump is more aggressive because he views rulings as political,” law professor Josh Blackman said. https://wapo.st/4fR9bjv
bsky.app bsky.app

Supreme Court decisions are now "political". Digest that for a few moments. Then tell me how you're going to fight the feds when they come with guns.
Click to expand...
We don't have to kill all of them. Just enough to make the jack booted thug next to them decide does he want to live or does he want to aid a fascist (and still maybe die)? They may come for me. They may stop me from voting and kill me when I decide to defend my right to vote. But some of them will die when they try.
 
psych said:
Well, the one example I read was a mother whose child suffered a stroke in utero. That didn’t meet requirements for an abortion, so she traveled to Maryland to get the abortion she needed. No doubt there’s more. The fact women have to leave MA means there’s obviously plenty of abortions that didn’t meet MA’s previous criteria…and MA is one of the “good ones.”
Click to expand...
If accurate I wonder what about that would not have met the medical exemptions. 🤷. Perhaps the change is more than symbolic so great, it just reads like a distinction without a difference to my non-lawyer eye.

As to your prior question about reasonable restrictions, I think most reasonable people would agree that there should be a valid medical reason or necessity after week 24.
 
ericredaxe said:
As to your prior question about reasonable restrictions, I think most reasonable people would agree that there should be a valid medical reason or necessity after week 24.
Click to expand...
And I think most of us would be fine with that, provided our expectant mothers had the legislated support and resources that mothers in EU and other civilized countries get.

Until such time as that occurs my policy remains - unrestricted abortion today, unrestricted abortion tomorrow, unrestricted abortion forever. I'm sure that makes me unreasonable.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
And I think most of us would be fine with that, provided our expectant mothers had the legislated support and resources that mothers in EU and other civilized countries get.

Until such time as that occurs my policy remains - unrestricted abortion today, unrestricted abortion tomorrow, unrestricted abortion forever. I'm sure that makes me unreasonable.
Click to expand...
So you think the amended Mass law is too restrictive? (Note: I’m about as pro choice a it gets, but I can understand and acknowledge third trimester discussions)

(Also note - in practice I have no idea how many, if any, happen in the third trimester for non-medical reasons)
 
It's not rocket science.

The United States ranks near the bottom or last among high-income, developed nations for maternal and prenatal care outcomes. Despite spending more on health care per capita, the U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate, high rates of preterm births, and lacks national guarantees for postpartum support compared to peer countries like Norway, Germany, and Japan
Click to expand...
This is why Abortion restrictions in this country are BS.

 
Minnesota Republicans have unlocked a winning formula.

bsky.app

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)

Tom Emmer claims Minnesotans are thanking Trump for ICE brutalizing the Twin Cities: "We've heard from all kinds of constituents -- 'please thank Donald Trump for trying to keep us safe and trying to get these illegals out.'"
bsky.app bsky.app
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
And I think most of us would be fine with that, provided our expectant mothers had the legislated support and resources that mothers in EU and other civilized countries get.

Until such time as that occurs my policy remains - unrestricted abortion today, unrestricted abortion tomorrow, unrestricted abortion forever. I'm sure that makes me unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Especially when it's like...

Republicans: If you can't feed em, don't breed em.
Us: OKAY
....

Republicans: WHY ARE YOU NOT HAVING KIDS?
 
ericredaxe said:
If accurate I wonder what about that would not have met the medical exemptions. 🤷. Perhaps the change is more than symbolic so great, it just reads like a distinction without a difference to my non-lawyer eye.

As to your prior question about reasonable restrictions, I think most reasonable people would agree that there should be a valid medical reason or necessity after week 24.
Click to expand...

Women have left MA for abortions. They won’t have to now. The loophole was closed. “If accurate”? I’m not going to doubt a woman telling her story of having to leave MA to get an abortion. Or that her particular case didn’t fit MA’s previous criteria.

Okay, a valid medical reason or necessity that’s left up to the doctor and the woman, correct? Because the “health and life of the mother and womb” wasn’t enough before. Legislators don’t understand the medical science. You don’t. I don’t to that degree. Not even close. Allow abortion throughout pregnancy and it be a medical decision between the physician and patient, yes? Anything else seems too restrictive to me.
 
Any restrictions are unacceptable given the current societal investment in children who are actually born. So yes, the MA law is too restrictive in our current policy environment.

Universal sex ed and availability of contraceptives would be important first steps, but good luck getting all the religiously indoctrinated, mouth-breathing Ma and Pa Kettles in this country to agree to that.

They don't want their kids to succeed. They want them to stay home and be poor, miserable, and stupid, with half a dozen kids of their own - just like them.
 
psych said:
Women have left MA for abortions. They won’t have to now. The loophole was closed. “If accurate”? I’m not going to doubt a woman telling her story of having to leave MA to get an abortion. Or that her particular case didn’t fit MA’s previous criteria.

Okay, a valid medical reason or necessity that’s left up to the doctor and the woman, correct? Because the “health and life of the mother and womb” wasn’t enough before. Legislators don’t understand the medical science. You don’t. I don’t to that degree. Not even close. Allow abortion throughout pregnancy and it be a medical decision between the physician and patient, yes? Anything else seems too restrictive to me.
Click to expand...
I just say "if accurate" as these days anyone can print anything - I have no reason to doubt it. So yes - if the new language closes a loophole that is great - I suspect the intention of the prior language was to be exactly as you describe. From a curiosity perspective, I'd be curious to know how or why a stroke does not fit in with the health category.
 
ericredaxe said:
I just say "if accurate" as these days anyone can print anything - I have no reason to doubt it. So yes - if the new language closes a loophole that is great - I suspect the intention of the prior language was to be exactly as you describe. From a curiosity perspective, I'd be curious to know how or why a stroke does not fit in with the health category.
Click to expand...

In Massachusetts, I have no reason to doubt that either, but we both know most legislators aren't doctors, much less OB/GYNs (fuck you, Roger Marshall of Kansas), so it's nice that the Democrats in Massachusetts corrected everything so that the government, even inadvertently, doesn't get between a woman, her doctor, and her medical decisions.

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Any restrictions are unacceptable given the current societal investment in children who are actually born. So yes, the MA law is too restrictive in our current policy environment.

Universal sex ed and availability of contraceptives would be important first steps, but good luck getting all the religiously indoctrinated, mouth-breathing Ma and Pa Kettles in this country to agree to that.

They don't want their kids to succeed. They want them to stay home and be poor, miserable, and stupid, with half a dozen kids of their own - just like them.
Click to expand...

I don't think your last two sentences are true. Even stupid people want their kids to succeed and not be miserable. Some of them are simply too stupid to help their kids, but I've seen stupid people do smart things before, like encourage their kids to go to college. Living in Kentucky for almost two decades now, I can say there are plenty of conservatives who are good, honest people who are also good parents just trying to make a living for their families. Now, fuck them and their fucking awful voting choices, and I'll never forgive them or excuse them for voting R, but I can separate a person from his or her voting in a (somewhat) civilized society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top