|
VitalSigns posted:drat has someone let Canada know they're an undeveloped society Canada has no national law on abortion (it was struck down and never replaced), but individual provinces each regulate it differently, restricting abortion after anywhere from 12-24 weeks.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
I like how for women we have all sorts of devil advocates and edge case arguments so we can decide exactly where we take away a woman's body from her. Meanwhile, rotting corpses of men go "lol can't do poo poo".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I've demonstrated that the sources you've googled don't say what you're saying. Repeatedly. https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/2020/08/list-abortion-clinics-canada.pdf Updated October 4, 2022. Exhaustive list of clinics, shows gestational limits. Nothing above 24 weeks. Take the L, DV. You're wrong here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Kalman posted:https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/2020/08/list-abortion-clinics-canada.pdf In BC you can go beyond 24 weeks, it's just very rarely done. For the rest of the provinces as you say it's varied.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Mr. Mercury posted:In BC you can go beyond 24 weeks, it's just very rarely done. For the rest of the provinces as you say it's varied. Yeah, to my understanding these are basically “our default rule for abortion without any reason required”; after that point they may or may not perform them, depending on physician committees and similar ethics questions. OTOH even when a Canadian hospital won’t do it, the larger provinces cover the cost of travel to the US and the procedure there, so it’s not at all comparable to US restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 23:19
|
|
Kalman posted:https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/2020/08/list-abortion-clinics-canada.pdf The second sentence of the notes section tells you it's not covering all the places most likely to go beyond 24 weeks. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Oct 13, 2022 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The second sentence of the notes section tells you it's not covering all the places most likely to go beyond 24 weeks. I don't see anything that says that. Do you mean this? quote:Most providing hospitals are not listed unless they are the only facility, or one of the few facilities, providing abortions in that province or territory. It's not really clear to me how that translates to "it's not covering all the places most likely to go beyond 24 weeks". Am I looking at the wrong notes section, or am I just misunderstanding something due to my lack of detailed knowledge about abortion facilities? Could you please explain a little more about what you're talking about? Preferably with more than just a dismissive one-liner?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I don't see anything that says that. Do you mean this? I read that note as saying 'this report only reports on dedicated clinics unless a hospital is one of the only providing facilities in an area'
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
I think he’s trying to imply that past 24 weeks only hospitals would perform procedures, which, sure, but that doesn’t mean they’ll do it without any reason. Up to 24 weeks in Canada, you don’t need a reason - after that you’d need medical ethics approval from the hospitals ethics committee, which they’re not going to give out lightly. There’s one instance I found of a Montreal woman getting an abortion at 35 weeks but she had to go to a couple hospitals before one would do it, with the first one refusing to do it. And while they might not face criminal liability for abortion specifically, if professional standards for an area are not to perform a procedure after a certain date, they do face potential malpractice issues and loss of license, neither of which is trivial. Which is probably why clinics don’t do it and hospitals almost never do and don’t do it without serious introspection. The idea that Canada is FFA up to birth is incorrect which was the original point up for debate, as far as I can recall at this point. They’re not. After 24 weeks (or earlier in most provinces) you’re at the mercy of someone else as to whether you can get an abortion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 01:46
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I don't see anything that says that. Do you mean this? As your quoted sentence says, the list isn't exhaustive, which one of the things claimed about it. Hospitals, the places not covered comprehensively in this list (or many other lists) are the places most likely to cover later term abortions involving surgical methods because, briefly, they're best equipped to handle the risks that may accompany the circumstances of such procedures. As Mr. Mercury has also attested, there are places to get abortions past 24 weeks. I'm "dismissive" when it's the fourth time someone casting around for a source that will support their prior belief demonstrates they haven't read their source. That's before we even get into the problem of category that vitalsigns originally noted- that it was responding to a legality distinction.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
It’s an “exhaustive list of clinics”, which was what I claimed. Maybe you should be reading more carefully, or actually responding in depth instead of just “no that’s not it.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 02:04
|
|
Kalman posted:It’s an “exhaustive list of clinics”, which was what I claimed. Maybe you should be reading more carefully, or actually responding in depth instead of just “no that’s not it.” If you're changing the underlying claim about access to only cover clinics, then sure. But that's not what the claim was- it was about access overall. It's shifted after the first five sources didn't support the original claim. vvv this is true as well- it's very frustrating having to address a constant category shift that doesn't acknowledge it's doing it. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Oct 13, 2022 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 02:07
|
|
|
The original claim was about legality. Whether anyone will actually do the procedure is a separate question, and the answer anywhere is of course going to be no because a 38th week abortion with no reason other than, idk, the woman wants to stop being pregnant so she can go to the club, is not a real thing that ever happens. E: If people are having trouble with this: If someone says no civilized society would let me get a blowjob from Henry Cavil, I'd start pointing out all the countries (like Canada) where this is legal. If you wanted to be argumentative, you could move the goalposts and point out that Henry Cavil would refuse if I asked for a blowjob in a house or with a mouse or in a box with a fox or here or there or anywhere, so therefore I couldn't actually get one in Canada. And yes this would also be a true statement, but irrelevant to the original claim. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Oct 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 02:11
|
|
|
I still question the need of even creating that rhetorical space to begin with, it's moot yet there's a lot of storytelling going on
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:E: If people are having trouble with this: If someone says no civilized society would let me get a blowjob from Henry Cavil, I'd start pointing out all the countries (like Canada) where this is legal. If you wanted to be argumentative, you could move the goalposts and point out that Henry Cavil would refuse if I asked for a blowjob in a house or with a mouse or in a box with a fox or here or there or anywhere, so therefore I couldn't actually get one in Canada. And yes this would also be a true statement, but irrelevant to the original claim. This kind of gets to legal vs legal rights. In Canada, it’s *legal* to get an abortion after 24 weeks; however, you don’t have a legal right to such an abortion meaning that your autonomy is subject to others decisions. Canadian provinces have made a decision - good or bad - that you don’t have unlimited autonomy in this arena after 24 weeks. The equivalent in your hypo is that blowjobs from Henry Cavill are legal. You just don’t have a right to one. Which is good in this case! But maybe not so much when we’re talking abortion and bodily autonomy. The 35 week story is actually an excellent example of the difference - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/muhc-abortion-montreal-quebec-1.3904755. (It’s also a good example of why people would actually seek abortion at that late date.). And Montreal is basically your best possible option in Canada for abortions. E: lest we forget, this was all triggered by the following statement: “Yet that’s not what we’re talking about. The argument was that a woman should have an absolute right to decide what to do with her body throughout the entirety of the pregnancy. Lest she be enslaved. EDIT: That includes weeks 36 through 40. It includes presumably requesting an abortion in lieu of giving birth when contractions have started. It’s not hard to see why all developed societies I’m aware of have decided that enslavement of the mother is the lesser evil.” That language is dumb as hell, but the point that Canada has decided to restrict that right is accurate. It may be legal to do, but you have no right to do it. (I’ll spare you the Hohfeldian jural correlative analysis.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Oct 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This kind of gets to legal vs legal rights. In Canada, it’s *legal* to get an abortion after 24 weeks; however, you don’t have a legal right to such an abortion meaning that your autonomy is subject to others decisions. This is a good point, yes the post quoted didn't explicitly distinguish between legal and legal right, but taking in the context and tenor of all of the op's posts on the subject (like comparing abortion to infanticide and asserting a fetus and a born baby ought not be treated any different legally), I feel pretty safe in my interpretation that the op was talking about legality and implying that every "developed" (hm weird my dog just started barking) society agrees with him and therefore his position is the only morally correct one, by argument ad populum. So I gave multiple examples of governments that did not have a legally forbidden cutoff date. I suppose I could be wrong, and the op agrees with the Canadian government that there's no need to criminalize any abortions, and the procedure ought to be regulated by professional standards established by medical boards, I'd be glad to hear it*, but somehow I doubt that's what they meant. E:*just to be clear, I still wouldn't agree because I think women ought to have a legal right to an abortion for any reason, but leaving it up to doctors is better than criminalizing it VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Oct 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
I don’t see it mentioned above but SCOTUS refused the Trump MAL appeal, no dissents noted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
Fifteen of Many posted:I don’t see it mentioned above but SCOTUS refused the Trump MAL appeal, no dissents noted. ...in one sentence. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Waiting for president desantis and a Republican house and senate, no doubt. Agreeing to hear a fetal personhood case would throw more fuel on the fire they started with striking down Roe that has taken the GOP from what would’ve been a historic red wave to having a real chance at not getting the Senate and a small chance at not getting the House. To announce they’re taking on that case would ensure the next few weeks put the focus back on a topic the GOP absolutely doesn’t want people talking about and it’d also mean they can’t get people to talk about the economy and blame Biden for everything. Even causing a 1 point shift could determine who controls one or both chambers and by how much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 12:41
|
|
|
It's even simpler, they don't have 5 votes for fetal personhood, if they did they would have done it when they struck down Roe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 13:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1582347508482646017?t=C4wFN_ZcnvTeJ9o8_LKVdg&s=19 I'm sure Thomas can't wait to deliver the majority opinion on this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 05:10
|
|
|
Glacier Northwest Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174. This one should be fun. Controversy related to strike action is generally handled by the National Labor Relations Board, with certain exceptions. This case is about whether a perishable product going bad counts as vandalism in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 05:32
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1582347508482646017?t=C4wFN_ZcnvTeJ9o8_LKVdg&s=19 Bringing back the 'one drop' rule, but with a twist!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 05:45
|
|
|
If striking unions are required to pay back any damages caused by work not performed being performed strikes and unions would cease to exist. Or more pointedly, legal strikes will cease to exist which honestly might be a good thing. Too many loving hoops to jump through as is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 05:47
|
|
|
What is the SC clownshow doing about the leak? I heard a month ago they were going to release a report, and nothing since then. Is it their intention to just slow-walk it to avoid having to reveal that the leak was a conservative justice or clerk, and just hope that everyone forgets about it eventually?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 05:49
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:If striking unions are required to pay back any damages caused by work not performed being performed strikes and unions would cease to exist. The next question is if it’s legal to quit your job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 06:09
|
|
|
Weekend? That's got to be a crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 06:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The next question is if it’s legal to quit your job. Don't worry, the Thedacare injunction was lifted, so you can quit, unless a judge says you can't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 06:47
|
|
|
Workers in the USA better prepare to get turboshafted in the coming years. If Glacier goes through, overnight there will be a cottage industry of people devising how to set up work routines that mean any labor action "destroys property". I wonder if not accepting overtime or being sick can also be a source of monetary compensation if it causes a perishable good to spoil?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 08:05
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The next question is if it’s legal to quit your job. Quitting is stealing from your boss
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 10:14
|
|
|
A bunch of articles popped up this year about quiet quitting, as if not giving a poo poo about your job is some revolutionary concept. Introducing, the quiet felony.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 10:16
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:What is the SC clownshow doing about the leak? I heard a month ago they were going to release a report, and nothing since then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 11:22
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Introducing, the quiet felony. Plz don't leak Justice Alito's upcoming opinion, it's an affront to the deliberative process
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 11:43
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:What is the SC clownshow doing about the leak? I heard a month ago they were going to release a report, and nothing since then. They're quietly investigating it, but the Supreme Court isn't really an investigative agency in the first place, and the whole institution is kind of built on putting a ton of trust in clerks and other staff, so it's not super shocking that it's taking a while. I always thought an internal investigation was gonna be dicey for exactly those reasons, but I'm sure the justices don't want to call in executive agencies to dig through their business. There isn't really much precedent for something like this. Gorsuch said last month that he thought it would be solved soon, but Kagan said around the same time that none of the justices except Roberts actually know what's going on with the investigation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 12:48
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They're quietly investigating it, but the Supreme Court isn't really an investigative agency in the first place, and the whole institution is kind of built on putting a ton of trust in clerks and other staff, so it's not super shocking that it's taking a while. I always thought an internal investigation was gonna be dicey for exactly those reasons, but I'm sure the justices don't want to call in executive agencies to dig through their business. There isn't really much precedent for something like this. I’m going to be shocked if the entire matter isn’t dropped because it was one of the justices themselves. “The ship of state leaks from the top”
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
The last good theory I heard is that it was one of either Alito or Thomas to prevent anyone from changing their vote late in the game like what happened with Obamacare
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
I figured it was a test balloon to see if "court packing" was in Biden's vocabulary. Instead, the Democrats' entire response was a collective shrug and fund raising, so full steam ahead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
A Wisconsin PAC has asked the SC to block Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Program.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:A Wisconsin PAC has asked the SC to block Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Program. Standing is the classic punt. Hard to see them setting a precedent for "you have standing because your fungible tax dollars are being spent."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
There is not even the slightest chance in hell that the Supreme Court rules that a random group of concerned taxpayers have standing. This has already been tried many times before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 01:29
|
|
