The public is far less split on issues, the problem is the two-party system driving voting one way or the other on all of these issues.
Roe vs Wade overturned
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Zardnaar
Deity
That and electoral system.
Arizona going even further:
Arizona’s Republican attorney general announced Wednesday that a pre-statehood law that bans all abortions is enforceable and that he will soon file for the removal of an injunction that has blocked it for nearly 50 years.
Besides the total ban, a law that grants eggs and fetuses all rights is also on the books. Abortion rights advocates are asking a judge who refused to block it last year because Roe v. Wade was in effect to reconsider his decision. The judge did block that law’s ban on abortions because of a fetal genetic abnormality.
Besides the total ban, a law that grants eggs and fetuses all rights is also on the books. Abortion rights advocates are asking a judge who refused to block it last year because Roe v. Wade was in effect to reconsider his decision. The judge did block that law’s ban on abortions because of a fetal genetic abnormality.
Lexicus
Deity
This is wild...eggs have "all rights"? Does that mean menstruating is manslaughter?
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
If they fail to get pregnant, then probably.
Planned Parenthood Michigan had a lawsuit ready to go to challenge any of the existing laws on the books that would snap back once Roe versus Wade was taken out. There is a lesson here about having advocates.
Ask, I don't know, Hong Kong and Venezuela about the benefits of protesting too late.
Ask, I don't know, Hong Kong and Venezuela about the benefits of protesting too late.
EnglishEdward
Deity
And what about the spermatozoa?
Every one of them is sacred, and if one were to be wasted, God would be quite irate.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
i don't see how this one can stand under equal protections clause. you need personhood to make bans on aborting fetuses work, and assigning personhood to eggs...yikes. the logical implications of that don't allow for functional law.
i suspect a few states are about to get hammered by lawsuits soon, and states doing crap like this will lose those lawsuits. "not having a constitutional right to abortion" and "blatantly violating multiple amendments" are different things. doing things against the constitution in order to block them should not be considered lawful.
We are having local discussion as to whether it is better to recommend women delete the service, or if we flood the service with non useful data. Like, people could use them to track their TV time, or their laundry habits, or whatever. Pull some actual use out of it, but make the data scrambled with regards to trawling the Metadata.
I will let computer science people here comment. That said, shouldn't it be super casual to find an app that doesn't upload the data that you put into it?
Men have, uhm, nightly emmissions as well.
Finding an app that doesn't in some way pass data back somewhere is tricky, because even anonymised data can (when aggregated) present patterns. For a casual observer, this wouldn't be a problem, but if you say introduce a subpoena or something into the equation and can match it to the wealth of data even state government has access to . . . well, it's cross-referencing. Yields more results (and results in this case would be bad).
So my general advice would be: flood the service if it allows it, and delete the service if it doesn't. Where possible, some people will be stuck in a situation where they get immediate benefit out of whatever service is in question. That's always the catch.
The educators in my feed are totally in a tizzy, because tracking fertility is an essential component of teaching men to ejaculate safely.
I doubt it. If making abortion very difficult (in the usual timeframe abortion is allowed in the rest of the "west") is ok to trigger by the supreme court and then have states legislate it, it is unlikely that there is only a small minority of people in the US that want this.
Besides, if giving the same rights re abortion of the rest of the west was easy, it would have become law by now.
Only other explanation would be that the US citizens are dumb enough to not realize for decades that a supreme court interpretation of something isn't a stable decision, since it's not a law.
Flooding the service with data won't do much good, I think. First, anything that does not look like a fertility cycle is easily filtered out. People tracking their TV habits would make the task of identifying potential abortions only marginally harder. So you would need simulated data that looks very much like real data, but is not identifiable (for example by its source). And even if you manage that, it would only affect trawling through the entire data set , where you would likely have many false positives anyway. The far more realistic danger would be targeted enquirements by law enforcement (after they got a tip or something). In this case they would already know what to look for, so garbage data would not affect them.
It would be certainly be possible to write an app that does not upload your data, however it would be difficult to find such an app. For an end user it is not transparent at all what kind of data an app leaks, so how would you tell whether an app is safe? And if it was safe last month, how do you tell the government did not force the programmer to collect the data after all?
And of course, most apps are funded by selling the data. So you would need to find alternative funding for such an app.
You can doubt what you want. Googling opinion polls would probably be better. Sure, it's not concrete, but it's better than any gut feeling.
It depends on a lot of factors. In no particular order, and there are more:
- Can you actually take down the service?
- How well is the app designed? How easy is it to extract data (for the owner)?
- What support does the app have?
I'm not saying you don't have a point, because you absolutely do. On law enforcement particularly. But with regards to just the app / service itself? Man, there's so much trash out there. Badly-implemented, badly-documented, inconsistent-between-its-own-operations . . . bad. And this is for stuff that is paid for. By institutions. And the thing about flooding a service is it doesn't really take a lot of effort (and something even as simple as a denial of service will filter out the companies in it for the fastest buck, which is a net positive by itself).
A lot of companies are likely going to find out exactly how much a lot of negative public attention will cost them. Well, I hope.
For proper function, the data needs to be stored in such a way that it can be retrieved for a single user, so it cannot be stored in an aggregated form. And if the raw data is there, you just need to employ someone intelligent enough for long enough to get meaningful data out of it. Yes, the server might crash and burn, or no one invests enough to extract the data, but do you really want to bet on that?
Yes there is a lot of trash out there. But filtering out the trash would only make it easier for law enforcement to get access. If there are only a few providers left over, which keep all the documentation in order, use well-maintained code, and have good database management, law enforcement would be one subpoena away from having good , curated data.
Guess the Gop is really going down in the midterms then. Or is that not related to those opinion polls?
After all, if the state governments that are running the changes into actual law won't suffer, it sort of implies the "gut feeling" is on your side.
Similar threads
