All house republicans except 8, vote against codifying access to birth control

[Foxi4]

I liked the first part of your post, but as for the last part ... you do understand this is the Democrats' bill to impose a "right" to access to contraceptives, right? The Republicans didn't make this vote happen. The Democrats did, regardless of whether the Congress has the authority to make such a law, and regardless of its likelihood of actually passing the Senate, because they wanted to have the "They voted against it!" moment. (to make discussions like this happen on the internet) Same with the assault weapons ban they're working on.

It's just politics. Republicans would do it too on some issue or other, if they had the numbers in the House.

Of course I understand. Here’s the problem with this line of thinking. The Democrat playbook is very simple - set up a snare, put a fancy and marketable name tag on it and invite the Republicans to step directly into it. This isn’t new - it’s just the nth permutation of “Let’s Do a Good Thing Act” that sounds great in the synopsis and includes pork barrel spending and other poison written in the appendix using a 2pt font. Republicans don’t know how to deal with that kind of thing, still. Their first impulse is moral outrage and throwing their hands up in the air. When they refuse to back legislation like this, they need to have a damn good reason for doing so, and they need to convey it to the public in a marketable way. In my estimation they haven’t done that. There needs to be at least one pleasant-looking face that can take the floor and object in a sensible way, someone who can voice their opinion and say “we shouldn’t be legislating this at all, we believe that our constituents can decide on their own because we treat them as grown adults. We’re not going to make these decisions on their behalf, they belong to the people”. In the absence of that they’re allowing their opposition they create the appearance of opposing something agreeable (at least on the face of it) because an old religious book told them to. That doesn’t speak to me - Republicans are responsible before the people, the public will judge them first, God will have to wait his turn. You and I both know it’s an optics game, but it’s an optics game the Republicans are *losing*.

 

[Hanafuda]

Of course I understand. Here’s the problem with this line of thinking. The Democrat playbook is very simple - set up a snare, put a fancy and marketable name tag on it and invite the Republicans to step directly into it. This isn’t new - it’s just the nth permutation of “Let’s Do a Good Thing Act” that sounds great in the synopsis and includes pork barrel spending and other poison written in the appendix using a 2pt font. Republicans don’t know how to deal with that kind of thing, still. Their first impulse is moral outrage and throwing their hands up in the air. When they refuse to back legislation like this, they need to have a damn good reason for doing so, and they need to convey it to the public in a marketable way. In my estimation they haven’t done that. There needs to be at least one pleasant-looking face that can take the floor and object in a sensible way, someone who can voice their opinion and say “we shouldn’t be legislating this at all, we believe that our constituents can decide on their own because we treat them as grown adults. We’re not going to make these decisions on their behalf, they belong to the people”. In the absence of that they’re allowing their opposition they create the appearance of opposing something agreeable (at least on the face of it) because an old religious book told them to. That doesn’t speak to me - Republicans are responsible before the people, the public will judge them first, God will have to wait his turn. You and I both know it’s an optics game, but it’s an optics game the Republicans are *losing*.

You're 100% correct. But if CNNNBCCBSABCNYTWaPo&etc don't report on the Republicans' argument against it, you're stuck with watching C-SPAN 24/7 to hear it. Maybe their reason for opposition was put forward on the floor, but if it isn't covered in the news articles, what difference at this point does it make?

 

[Foxi4]

You're 100% correct. But if CNNNBCCBSABCNYTWaPo&etc don't report on the Republicans' argument against it, you're stuck with watching C-SPAN 24/7 to hear it. Maybe their reason for opposition was put forward on the floor, but if it isn't covered in the news articles, what difference at this point does it make?

Old Media are dead. The news cycle lives on Twitter, first and foremost. The Republicans need good spokesmen, and they’re desperate for them. This isn’t a problem you can throw a Charlie Kirk at, they need normal-looking people that can convey the platform in simple terms that resonate with the constituents, and it looks to me like they’re searching in all the wrong places.

 

[AleronIves]

Sounds to me like your saying we need an amendment for every right we wish to have. I'm pretty sure that's not how that's supposed to work. We're supposed to have presumed liberty until a law is made to limit it some way for the good of the people. The freedom is the default, not the other way around.

Presumed liberty is not the same as a right, though. The 10th amendment says that any power not granted to the federal government through the US Constitution belongs to the states or the people. In other words, as long as the US Constitution doesn't forbid it or explicitly say that the federal government is in charge of it, then it falls to state governments. If state constitutions don't address it, then it's in the category of "you do you" for the people in that state. This is liberty, but it's not a right, because states could choose to restrict it at any time, depending upon how their constitutions are written, and local governments could also potentally choose to restrict it.

If you want to codify something as a right, and you want that right to override the authority of all state governments to disagree, then you must amend the US Constitution. You don't pretend that the US Congress can create new rights through regular legislation, because the US Constitution doesn't say that Congress has the power to do that, and you certainly don't rely on the SCOTUS to bring out a crystal ball to pretend that the US Constitution says things that it doesn't say through divination.

 

[Viri]

I have no idea what this is even about. I don't think birth control should become illegal, as that would just be plain dumb. I do believe it should remain prescription only, just for the sake of the female's well being, as birth control pills have pretty bad side effects, and the female's doctor should help the female pick out the right one that won't kill her.

 

[Foxi4]

Presumed liberty is not the same as a right, though. The 10th amendment says that any power not granted to the federal government through the US Constitution belongs to the states or the people. In other words, as long as the US Constitution doesn't forbid it or explicitly say that the federal government is in charge of it, then it falls to state governments. If state constitutions don't address it, then it's in the category of "you do you" for the people in that state. This is liberty, but it's not a right, because states could choose to restrict it at any time, depending upon how their constitutions are written, and local governments could also potentally choose to restrict it.

If you want to codify something as a right, and you want that right to override the authority of all state governments to disagree, then you must amend the US Constitution. You don't pretend that the US Congress can create new rights through regular legislation, because the US Constitution doesn't say that Congress has the power to do that, and you certainly don't rely on the SCOTUS to bring out a crystal ball to pretend that the US Constitution says things that it doesn't say through divination.

The matter of medical choice sits on the intersection of the 10th and the 14th amendments. “The powers not delegated (…) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (…) are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, however simultaneously “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Based on those two statements we can have an argument on what constitutes liberty as far as reproduction is concerned - I’m sure it’ll be fun, and very unproductive. In an ideal scenario we would see a dedicated amendment establishing medical choice as an enumerated right, but that’s a tightrope neither party wants walk or be held responsible for because it entails truckloads of unintended consequences. You have to take the sweet with the bitter, and there’s plenty of bitter for each party to object to when liberty is concerned.

 

[AleronIves]

Old Media are dead. The news cycle lives on Twitter, first and foremost.

I don't think this is really true. A small percentage of the population uses Twitter, and a small percentage of those people uses Twitter extensively. A big problem for the Democrats is their constant ability to mistake Twitter's opinion on things for the American people's opinion on things. It's why they spend such a huge amount of time on identity politics, instead of the things that might actually get them elected. They've mistaken the funhouse mirror that is Twitter for reality, and they can't understand why people in the real world don't want to vote for them, when their platform seems like it should be a winner based on what matters on Twitter.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I still remember all the pro-birthers saying, in the Roe V Wade thread, "There is NO NEED for abortion, contraception is enough and people should learn responsible sex". I called them on their lies, and they said what I wanted was just to "murder babies" - FACT: foetuses are not babies and never are. I also said that contraception was going to be on the block soon, and that was ridiculed as paranoia.

Another FACT: look at the vote. Anyone with a functioning brain, or enough intellectual honesty to fill a teacup, could have seen this was about to happen.

 

[Jayro]

Why do republicans STRIVE to be such trash, 100% of their lives? I just don't get it.

 

[Jayro]

I still remember all the pro-birthers saying, in the Roe V Wade thread, "There is NO NEED for abortion, contraception is enough and people should learn responsible sex". I called them on their lies, and they said what I wanted was just to "murder babies" - FACT: foetuses are not babies and never are. I also said that contraception was going to be on the block soon, and that was ridiculed as paranoia.

Another FACT: look at the vote. Anyone with a functioning brain, or enough intellectual honesty to fill a teacup, could have seen this was about to happen.

Their own bible states that "life begins at the first breath". They're so hypocritical, it hurts.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Since you are being extremely naive and gullible allow me to sell you a bridge as well.

The people that are voting against these thing are overly-religious and hate filled individuals that are only voting this way because it lines up with their own personal feelings and religious dogma and nothing more.

As for the government stepping in, maybe they didn't teach you this in school, or homeschool in your case, but before the government stepped in people literally didn't even have the freedom to marry those they loved. In fact many people were threatened, beaten, lynched, subjected to electro shock treatment, or even outright killed just for existing or "loving the wrong person" and this includes children as well.

Also, this would be a good point, if you know, the situations were actually similar in more ways than one. For instance, and I just want to make sure, did you know that viruses are contagious and pregnancies aren't? I am just making sure because some of you folks don't seem to know the difference.

I really don't care about your immature emotions.

Nobody has been lynched in this country in a 100 years, unless you count Jussie Smollett.

You people think babies are parasites because you don't understand the definition of parasite or baby. It's obvious you people hate science.

 

[Xzi]

Gotta keep prisons populated and military recruitment rates up somehow. Fucking clowns showing their whole asses to the world now.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't think this is really true. A small percentage of the population uses Twitter, and a small percentage of those people uses Twitter extensively. A big problem for the Democrats is their constant ability to mistake Twitter's opinion on things for the American people's opinion on things. It's why they spend such a huge amount of time on identity politics, instead of the things that might actually get them elected. They've mistaken the funhouse mirror that is Twitter for reality, and they can't understand why people in the real world don't want to vote for them, when their platform seems like it should be a winner based on what matters on Twitter.

It’s obviously part hyperbole, but you must admit that new media are displacing traditional news. You can see it in peak primetime viewership figures - they’re not holding up to pop growth while an increasing number of people admit that social media are either their primary or at least an important source of news. In the United States that figure sits at 42%, and it’s growing rapidly while prime time viewership of CNN dropped by 70% in their key demo. They enjoyed a brief bump during the pandemic since people were stuck at home looking at their Idiot Boxes all day, it looks nice on a graph, but the trajectory for the future is clear. Social Media remove the middle man and democratise the news business. Is the news of equal quality? Absolutely not, no Pulitzer Awards are heading the way of internet randos, but an increasing amount of people prefer to watch a video someone shot on their phone as they witnessed an event over an opinion piece on a major news network. There’s a reason why newspapers are switching from an ad-based framework back to subscriptions - they’re struggling to churn out the clicks necessary to support themselves, they need a constant revenue stream from their key demo - old people.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/718019/social-media-news-source/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjo...se-prime-time-down-nearly-70-in-key-demo/amp/

 

[Dark_Phoras]

The current Republican Party in the US is a caricature of made up ideological stances. They are also an elite that can access everything they're restricting, so they're posturing for the masses and helping to mold a society from which they live apart and to whose rules they're not subject. And a bunch of muppets below them struggle and continuously adapt to rationalize, internalize and defend these impositions.

 

[AleronIves]

It’s obviously part hyperbole, but you must admit that new media are displacing traditional news.

That's true, but I think traditional TV news died a long time ago, when deregulation removed the requirement that TV networks had to operate an independent news department, even if it didn't make any money, as a requirement to access the public spectrum. I would say that cable "news" (really infotainment) is closer to what happens on social media than what happens in a traditional newsroom. Just like social media, cable news networks are primarily trying to drive viewership, and if low quality programming increases viewership, then that's what they produce.

There isn't enough actual news to fill a 24-hour news cycle (unless you expand to global news, which Americans wouldn't watch), so the cable networks fill their schedules with talking heads and other nonsense that's almost as far from actual news as what you get from Twitter. The only real difference is that a cable network has the oversight required to maintain consistent messaging, whereas Twitter randos do not. The actual content isn't really news in the traditional sense either way, though. Social media democratised the production of infotainment, but it's merely an extension of something that started long before Twitter existed.

 

[Foxi4]

That's true, but I think traditional TV news died a long time ago, when deregulation removed the requirement that TV networks had to operate an independent news department, even if it didn't make any money, as a requirement to access the public spectrum. I would say that cable "news" (really infotainment) is closer to what happens on social media than what happens in a traditional newsroom. Just like social media, cable news networks are primarily trying to drive viewership, and if low quality programming increases viewership, then that's what they produce.

There isn't enough actual news to fill a 24-hour news cycle (unless you expand to global news, which Americans wouldn't watch), so the cable networks fill their schedules with talking heads and other nonsense that's almost as far from actual news as what you get from Twitter. The only real difference is that a cable network has the oversight required to maintain consistent messaging, whereas Twitter randos do not. The actual content isn't really news in the traditional sense either way, though. Social media democratised the production of infotainment, but it's merely an extension of something that started long before Twitter existed.

Yellow journalism predates television. The idea that journalists exist to propagate unbiased news and inform the public is fallacious, and has been fallacious for as long as the “extra, extra, read all about it!” mentality infected the industry (and it is an industry, let’s be real). Newspapers have been competing using increasingly hyperbolic headlines for literally centuries. It takes a really diligent reader capable of ingesting multiple sources thoroughly to extract a thimble of truth from a bucket of opinions. There are very, very few journalists who do their job in a principled manner - they’re usually independent, and they fall off the map quickly because truth isn’t exciting enough, it doesn’t sell ads.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Gotta keep prisons populated and military recruitment rates up somehow. Fucking clowns showing their whole asses to the world now.

Actually, the Army missed their recruitment goal by 28,000.

 

[AleronIves]

Yellow journalism predates television.

Sure, there's no such thing as total objectivity, but the for-profit TV news model ushered in by deregulation changed the stated goal of TV news from informing the public to making money, and those two things are often at odds with one another.

There are very, very few journalists who do their job in a principled manner - they’re usually independent, and they fall off the map quickly because truth isn’t exciting enough, it doesn’t sell ads.

Exactly, which is why the "loss leader" TV news model was so important.

 

[Foxi4]

Sure, there's no such thing as total objectivity, but the for-profit TV news model ushered in by deregulation changed the stated goal of TV news from informing the public to making money, and those two things are often at odds with one another.

Exactly, which is why the "loss leader" TV news model was so important.

I think the difference between you and me is that you think there was a point in time when journalists were honest and didn’t operate with an agenda in mind whereas I don’t - everyone has an agenda, be it consciously or unconsciously. This materialises in one of two ways - by selective coverage or by shameless manufacturing of narratives. I don’t even blame the journalists for that, it’s part of human nature. Everybody has a worldview and wants that worldview to propagate. Whenever I look at a news story (and they are stories, to a large extent), I read what happened, where, when and who was there, and immediately tune out the rest. This is pretty much the only way to avoid the spin zone, and that’s a sad state of affairs.

 

[AleronIves]

I think the difference between you and me is that you think there was a point in time when journalists were honest and didn’t operate with an agenda in mind whereas I don’t - everyone has an agenda, be it consciously or unconsciously.

What part of, "There's no such thing as total objectivity," made you think I believe there was a point in time when journalists were totally objective? I'm not advocating for a return to a golden era when journalism was perfect. I'm saying that it's worse now than in the past, and we already know of a system that makes the problem less bad, so a reasonable first step would be to use those principles to ameliorate the current problem. Would it be 100% solved? No, but you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Giving journalists a profit motive to be unethical surely doesn't help the situation, and taking that away could at least help to some degree, right? You seem to be saying, "Well, humans are always corrupt to some extent, so there's nothing we can do," which seems excessively defeatist to me. Just because we can never win the war against corruption doesn't mean we should give up the fight.