Boru

Women supporting the Republican Party is like chickens supporting KFC.

Boru

A bright spot in this unholy mess:



Boru

Aw sweet, more criminals......I mean babies.

(June 25, 2022 at 5:19 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: A bright spot in this unholy mess:



Boru

Um "Reimbursement"? Ok, how  does that work if you don't have the money in the first place? "You pay for it first, send us the bill, and well will give you your money back." Um that cannot work if the person doesn't have the money in the first place. And notice the other hitch? You have to be enrolled in their company health care plan. 

One of my former bosses had us at a meeting, he introduced an employee who worked for an insurance company. It had a wide rage of menu options, but to be fully pragmatically effective one would have to buy the entire bundle. And the idea was that monthly premium came out of your paycheck. I looked at all the prices and being that my wages at the time were a meager $9.00 an hour, if I did that, I wouldn't have a dime left over. This is simply virtue signaling.

(June 25, 2022 at 8:57 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(June 25, 2022 at 5:19 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: A bright spot in this unholy mess:



Boru

Um "Reimbursement"? Ok, how  does that work if you don't have the money in the first place? "You pay for it first, send us the bill, and well will give you your money back." Um that cannot work if the person doesn't have the money in the first place. And notice the other hitch? You have to be enrolled in their company health care plan. 

One of my former bosses had us at a meeting, he introduced an employee who worked for an insurance company. It had a wide rage of menu options, but to be fully pragmatically effective one would have to buy the entire bundle. And the idea was that monthly premium came out of your paycheck. I looked at all the prices and being that my wages at the time were a meager $9.00 an hour, if I did that, I wouldn't have a dime left over. This is simply virtue signaling.

Some of these companies are doing a hell of a lot more than the government is.  Reimbursing someone up to $4,000.00 is a damn sight better than making someone have and care for a child that they either don't want or know they are ill-equipped to raise.

(June 25, 2022 at 8:57 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(June 25, 2022 at 5:19 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: A bright spot in this unholy mess:



Boru

Um "Reimbursement"? Ok, how  does that work if you don't have the money in the first place? "You pay for it first, send us the bill, and well will give you your money back." Um that cannot work if the person doesn't have the money in the first place. And notice the other hitch? You have to be enrolled in their company health care plan. 

One of my former bosses had us at a meeting, he introduced an employee who worked for an insurance company. It had a wide rage of menu options, but to be fully pragmatically effective one would have to buy the entire bundle. And the idea was that monthly premium came out of your paycheck. I looked at all the prices and being that my wages at the time were a meager $9.00 an hour, if I did that, I wouldn't have a dime left over. This is simply virtue signaling.

Oh, ffs.

Boru

I've never been the most knowledgeable on the legal side of things. Yet, there are two opinions about this that I find odd. The first one says this is good because it's returning power to the people. On paper they say it brings power down to the state from the federal level, but in practice this took power away from the individual and gave it to the state. Individual choice was lost and given to the state government, wasn't it? And it's a counterintuitive dynamic that only occurs when the Federal government champions a right. If on the other hand they were taking away a right, by banning abortions, only in that scenario will giving the choice to the State bring any power back to the people.

The second argument is the one that views this as a moral victory. If your views are that abortion is always wrong, everywhere, and for any reason, then isn't this still a loss for you if even one state deems it legal? I'm not sure what is morally gained by this. And if you're comfortable with individual states deciding for themselves, then how is that different from individual people deciding for themselves?

There is nothing empowering about this ruling it was a partisan act against the popular will of the people to fulfill the agenda of the religious right and because abortion is moral this is a loss any loss of access is a loss period.

Justice Clarence Thomas still silent:

Wikipedia -- Loving v. Virginia