There’s probably 100,00 frozen babies in the US. Maybe 1,000,000. Biggest reason we don’t know is the libertarian profit driven IVF industry. Their society is ASRM, with weak ethics rules.
“Hey mister, git those babies a blanket! Whoa doggy, we love unborn babies more than born uns.”
Let's assume as a given that Republicans want lots of white babies born in America, as a source of cheap labor/cannon fodder, and also to punish women for having sex.
Having established that baseline, I understand why keeping women from accessing abortion and birth control is consistent with their goal.
I *don't* understand why getting rid of IVF -- which will result in FEWER babies being born -- is.
Its not quite that simple, there's a few groups of people who's reason's are different but want the same outcome. Cruelty is always the point. They moved too fast on "frozen embryos are people."
See there was supposed to be a glut of white babies. Ones without mom's or just handed over to be adopted or removed from unsuitable homes by social services. Removing IVF means families who want babies can't get them that way so *adoption*.
Profits for the Christian adoption agencies and not big IVF/Pharm. Plus doing g*d's work.
But there's not currently a big pool of white babies to adopt. Because those who can get abortions do and birth control etc. Which is why they want birth control banned because you don't need a specialist to prescribe birth control and pushing for abstinence.
They didn't think about the consequences of removing prenatal care though. No NICU means fewer to no premature babies. More babies stillborn. More babies born who get sick and die or need operations. Ones who wont live past 5 because genetic testing wasn't done because they want that banned. But rich so can afford it right? It's like trading out your car but babies. Plus makes them gain points in looking more holy at their churches. "Our baby was with us for such a short time but we learned so much" sighs from the nanny that actually raised them.
Babies harmed by their mom's trying do stupid suggestions from the internet = more babies born in prison. Easier to remove the parental rights from people they make into criminals. Also leaves the moms in less stable work situation so they feel they have to give up the baby.
I think that's more thought to the whole thing than most republican lawmakers but not the people who are pushing the policies.
It's the fundies who want to establish "fetal personhood, they hate IVF because they want to control who gets babies, and they think because it is science-based "god" their childish idea of it, anyway, is not involved.
"when the MSNBC reporter asked me that question, I was in the middle of a hallway... as is so often the case when you're running away from a reporter..."
"These are very complex issues, where I'm not sure everybody has really thought about what all the potential problems are. [...] It's not like the little shits are Mexicans that you can just drown in a river. Oh, crap, did I just say that out loud?"
I was pissed that Bash didn't follow up on Abbott with "As Texas is all about "protecting life" and every IVF procedure ends up disposing of theoretically viable embryos once pregnancy has been established why are you dancing around the question? Is it because this is primarily utilized by upper income white people, HMMMMM?"
If these useless talking heads are going to talk to Republicans about IVF, I think the first question should always be, "Can you tell me what IVF stands for?"
IVF puts republicans between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the forced birther contingent has wanted to ban it since the procedure was invented. On the other hand, a lot of Republican couples have availed themselves of IVF to conceive and don’t want to see it banned even if they are anti-abortion.
This may be the one time in recent history where the less extreme wing of republicans wins the debate.
If the Talibama SC definition of embryo=person stands, it won’t matter what “normal” Republicans want, IVF will end. So will some cancer research and treatment. The future status of stem cells will also be in doubt. Overreaching christofascism will be the death of reproductive science.
Do you think every Republican in Congress running for reelection realizes they've lost all support for their campaigns because every penny the RNC owns will have to go to saving Donnie Trump?
How did Greg Abbott get where he is? He's not a COMPLETE idiot. Again, smart has many components. Could he memorize a lot of law facts and regurgitate them on tests? Yes. Was he a charming young man who appealed to Nazis? Certainly. Did he have the brains to come in out of the rain in a big storm? Well, no actually. Can he figure out that if you take away rights from women, they will hate your guts? He seems surprised about that, and anyway, those aren't "nice christian" women. So here's my diagnosis:
I do not, for one moment, believe that Greg Abbott is an idiot, or stupid, or any suchlike.
Remember on Passover when we talk about the Four Sons? We talk about the wise son and the wicked son, and that sounds like the wicked son is less intelligent than the wise son, but that is not the case. The wicked son _is_ intelligent, but he uses his intelligence in the furtherance of evil.
And that's exactly what Abbott is doing.
The reason he comes off as foolish is because he's desperately trying to make 1 + 1 = Orange, and he knows he can't do it, and it's killing the brain slug attached to his head every time he attempts this nonsensical math. So there are some misfires in the synapses between his thought center and his mouth. But brain slugs regenerate, and Abbott continues with his evil.
As you correctly point out, he's trying to prove that 1 + 1 = Orange. And he refuses to abandon that impossible task because even the attempt serves his ambition. Again: Intelligence (smart) has many components. And recognizing reality is one of them. In that task he fails. People who work in the foundations of math are still trying to prove that math is consistent. For an amusing short discussion, see George Boolos' presentation of Godel's second incompleteness theorem: https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Math/Milnikel/boolos-godel.pdf (suggestion: read this aloud, and very slowly)
"Further, if embryos and fetuses are children, then the state may have an interest in protecting their lives that extends to controlling even more of women’s daily conduct. Could a woman who is pregnant, or could be pregnant, have a right to do things that might endanger her embryo in a situation where an embryo is her legal equal, with a claim on state protection? Could she risk this embryo’s health and life by, say, eating sushi, or having some soft cheese? Forget about the wine. Could she be charged with child endangerment for speeding? For going on a jog?"
In Alabama especially if a POC? Absolutely, I have a theory they are arresting young women of fertile age in order to abuse them and use the as human puppy-mills. They sure aren't doing it to ""protect their fetus".
There’s probably 100,00 frozen babies in the US. Maybe 1,000,000. Biggest reason we don’t know is the libertarian profit driven IVF industry. Their society is ASRM, with weak ethics rules.
“Hey mister, git those babies a blanket! Whoa doggy, we love unborn babies more than born uns.”
"Thank goodness stupidity is not contagious"
See, the problem isn't whether stupidity is contagious or not.
It's that, as Zappa said, "Stupidity is like hydrogen. It's everywhere, it's the basic building block of the universe."
This isn't even INTERNALLY consistent.
Let's assume as a given that Republicans want lots of white babies born in America, as a source of cheap labor/cannon fodder, and also to punish women for having sex.
Having established that baseline, I understand why keeping women from accessing abortion and birth control is consistent with their goal.
I *don't* understand why getting rid of IVF -- which will result in FEWER babies being born -- is.
Its not quite that simple, there's a few groups of people who's reason's are different but want the same outcome. Cruelty is always the point. They moved too fast on "frozen embryos are people."
See there was supposed to be a glut of white babies. Ones without mom's or just handed over to be adopted or removed from unsuitable homes by social services. Removing IVF means families who want babies can't get them that way so *adoption*.
Profits for the Christian adoption agencies and not big IVF/Pharm. Plus doing g*d's work.
But there's not currently a big pool of white babies to adopt. Because those who can get abortions do and birth control etc. Which is why they want birth control banned because you don't need a specialist to prescribe birth control and pushing for abstinence.
They didn't think about the consequences of removing prenatal care though. No NICU means fewer to no premature babies. More babies stillborn. More babies born who get sick and die or need operations. Ones who wont live past 5 because genetic testing wasn't done because they want that banned. But rich so can afford it right? It's like trading out your car but babies. Plus makes them gain points in looking more holy at their churches. "Our baby was with us for such a short time but we learned so much" sighs from the nanny that actually raised them.
Babies harmed by their mom's trying do stupid suggestions from the internet = more babies born in prison. Easier to remove the parental rights from people they make into criminals. Also leaves the moms in less stable work situation so they feel they have to give up the baby.
I think that's more thought to the whole thing than most republican lawmakers but not the people who are pushing the policies.
It's the fundies who want to establish "fetal personhood, they hate IVF because they want to control who gets babies, and they think because it is science-based "god" their childish idea of it, anyway, is not involved.
"when the MSNBC reporter asked me that question, I was in the middle of a hallway... as is so often the case when you're running away from a reporter..."
"These are very complex issues, where I'm not sure everybody has really thought about what all the potential problems are. [...] It's not like the little shits are Mexicans that you can just drown in a river. Oh, crap, did I just say that out loud?"
I was pissed that Bash didn't follow up on Abbott with "As Texas is all about "protecting life" and every IVF procedure ends up disposing of theoretically viable embryos once pregnancy has been established why are you dancing around the question? Is it because this is primarily utilized by upper income white people, HMMMMM?"
Hypocritical asshole.
She's a Republican, why would she do that?
Ta, Michael. I try not to harbor hatred in my heart. Republican politicians make that really, really difficult.
"Thank goodness stupidity is not contagious"
Are you sure about that?
If these useless talking heads are going to talk to Republicans about IVF, I think the first question should always be, "Can you tell me what IVF stands for?"
It would save a lot of time.
Hold your cards, folks - it seems we have a BINGO!
Nice cartoon of mass wasting, which will be the name of my Celtic Metal band.
IVF puts republicans between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the forced birther contingent has wanted to ban it since the procedure was invented. On the other hand, a lot of Republican couples have availed themselves of IVF to conceive and don’t want to see it banned even if they are anti-abortion.
This may be the one time in recent history where the less extreme wing of republicans wins the debate.
If the Talibama SC definition of embryo=person stands, it won’t matter what “normal” Republicans want, IVF will end. So will some cancer research and treatment. The future status of stem cells will also be in doubt. Overreaching christofascism will be the death of reproductive science.
Overreaching christofascism will be the death of all science, as it has tried to be since it was fucking invented
Donalds obviously aced his course in Shameless Lying and Obfuscation given to all Republican congresscritters by the RNC
Donalds doesn't have a hope in hell of a VP slot - The Donald couldn't bear another Donald on the ticket.
Plus, Trump's a racist. He's not going to have a black VP.
Or a woman.
Ronna Romney McDaniel can go back to using her family name. I wonder what her grandfather George would think of Hair Furor?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rnc-chair-ronna-mcdaniel-resignation-rcna137347
Do you think every Republican in Congress running for reelection realizes they've lost all support for their campaigns because every penny the RNC owns will have to go to saving Donnie Trump?
Oh, they'll just fucking blame Antifa
How did Greg Abbott get where he is? He's not a COMPLETE idiot. Again, smart has many components. Could he memorize a lot of law facts and regurgitate them on tests? Yes. Was he a charming young man who appealed to Nazis? Certainly. Did he have the brains to come in out of the rain in a big storm? Well, no actually. Can he figure out that if you take away rights from women, they will hate your guts? He seems surprised about that, and anyway, those aren't "nice christian" women. So here's my diagnosis:
He's an idiot savant and totally evil.
I do not, for one moment, believe that Greg Abbott is an idiot, or stupid, or any suchlike.
Remember on Passover when we talk about the Four Sons? We talk about the wise son and the wicked son, and that sounds like the wicked son is less intelligent than the wise son, but that is not the case. The wicked son _is_ intelligent, but he uses his intelligence in the furtherance of evil.
And that's exactly what Abbott is doing.
The reason he comes off as foolish is because he's desperately trying to make 1 + 1 = Orange, and he knows he can't do it, and it's killing the brain slug attached to his head every time he attempts this nonsensical math. So there are some misfires in the synapses between his thought center and his mouth. But brain slugs regenerate, and Abbott continues with his evil.
I always felt like the fourth kid gets abused. Weird, sad story.
Abbot’s smarter than 60 percent of Texans. That’s not saying much.
As you correctly point out, he's trying to prove that 1 + 1 = Orange. And he refuses to abandon that impossible task because even the attempt serves his ambition. Again: Intelligence (smart) has many components. And recognizing reality is one of them. In that task he fails. People who work in the foundations of math are still trying to prove that math is consistent. For an amusing short discussion, see George Boolos' presentation of Godel's second incompleteness theorem: https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Math/Milnikel/boolos-godel.pdf (suggestion: read this aloud, and very slowly)
I question the savant part.
There goes my line...again.
DAMMIT DAN.
Double upfist the evil, though.
"Further, if embryos and fetuses are children, then the state may have an interest in protecting their lives that extends to controlling even more of women’s daily conduct. Could a woman who is pregnant, or could be pregnant, have a right to do things that might endanger her embryo in a situation where an embryo is her legal equal, with a claim on state protection? Could she risk this embryo’s health and life by, say, eating sushi, or having some soft cheese? Forget about the wine. Could she be charged with child endangerment for speeding? For going on a jog?"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/26/alabama-ivf-frozen-embryos-surveillance
In Alabama especially if a POC? Absolutely, I have a theory they are arresting young women of fertile age in order to abuse them and use the as human puppy-mills. They sure aren't doing it to ""protect their fetus".