Texas decide to take a few steps back into 18th century

[Ziggurat]

Health standards change. She may have been wrong on particular issues, but she was attacked for even attempting to upgrade dietary standards.

Yes, standards change. Why? Because the process that the government uses to establish those standards is crap. And it's not unreasonable to attack someone for using a crap process to inflict crap standards over the objection of local school systems.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm aware of that, but that may not be the case much longer. Read the link in the OP

I read the link, and I don't see it.

"The Texas bill also includes provisions that let adoption and foster care agencies refuse to provide or facilitate abortion services and contraception to teens under their care. Child welfare providers can also require children under their care to receive a religious education, including putting them in religious schools."

"The bill also includes a "secondary services" provision that "specifically requires the state to ensure that alternate providers are available to offer any services that a faith-based provider declines to provide due to religious conflicts," according to his office's statement."

So the religious organizations don't have to provide abortion services themselves, but the state will.

Its the thin end of the wedge

Or, maybe it isn't. But in any case, even if you think that no abortions is the goal, they aren't there, and Roe v. Wade will keep them from ever getting there. So your claim, as originally stated, is still wrong.

 

[Crossbow]

Well, we on the right don't need to be led around by the nanny state.

The right is nothing but a bunch of stupid, idiotic, liars who constantly preach their independence of the government who are entirely dependent upon the government.

 

[Belz...]

Well, we on the right don't need to be led around by the nanny state.

And yet you keep making laws to tell people what to do, as well. Funny that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The red states seem to love Federal money, though.

This is not directed at you specifically, but at everyone who attempts to use this as an argument.

Liberals seem to love the concept of redistribution of wealth... but they also seem to hate it in action. Where do the wealthiest people live? Oh yeah - almost all of them are in dense urban areas. Those dense urban areas tend to be more blue overall. "Blue States" are, on the whole, states with large densely populated cities - New York, California, Denver, Seattle, etc. Therefore, those states will be net contributors to the zero-sum pot of money that represents the balance of government taxation and dispensation. "Red States" tend to be states with larger rural populations, and with smaller and less densely populated areas, and tend to have significantly fewer wealthy people. Therefore those states will be net receivers of the zero-sum calculation of federal redistribution.

So what's the deal? Do you want to increase tax on the wealthy? Do you want to help the poor? Or do you want to increase tax on wealthy republicans and redistribute those funds to poor democrats? Are people who live in red states just not the right kind of poor people for you? Is it only poor people in blue states that merit your compassion, and the rest can go rot because they don't think the right way?

Egads. The disconnect between the profoundly held belief that money should be redistributed from the wealthy to the poor and the complaint that poor states get more money redistributed to them from wealthy states is just mind boggling.

 

[marplots]

Is the adoption agency a private business?

Yes, although they provide services to the state of Texas as well as their clients. Here's a list from Texas. Quite a few are "faith based."

https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/adoption_and_foster_care/adoption_partners/private.asp#paa

Typical description:
...is a Christian, non-profit child placing agency who believes that every child is uniquely special and deserves to live in a loving and supportive home, free from harm and fear.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There was a de facto end to the death penalty in the U.S. until Gary Gilmore demanded to be executed. A lot of things have regressed since the '70s.

I'm not sure I understand this Texas law. Does it apply to adoption organizations that accept no public funding? Refusing to place kids with gay couples IMO should not be a deal-breaker because you would eliminate some wonderful parents. But should, say, "Catholic Adoption Services" be allowed to preferentially place kids with Catholic families, if no public money is involved? If I had my way I would not let a little baby go to parents who are extreme religious fundamentalists. That's discrimination, but are private adoption agencies not allowed to discriminate?

Maybe I'm naive - maybe public money is always involved. I'm pretty sure it wasn't when my mother adopted 2 of my brothers in the 1950s.

Slightly off topic... it has not been my experience that Catholics, in general, would be considered 'extreme religious fundamentalists'. There may be a few small sects within Catholicism that qualify, but in general, Catholics are rarely in the fundy camp. Baptists, on the other hand...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Strawman.

The members of the EU are countries; they are sovereign states. Individual States of the USA are not sovereign, they are simply provinces of the USA. The USA IS a sovereign state

Not a strawman. The US is a federation of semi-sovereign states. It is not now, and has never been, a single sovereign entity. It also happens to be about 3 times bigger than the countries in the EU, and nearly the same size as the entire continent of Europe... Now take a moment and think about the variety of opinions, interests, laws, and cultures at play across the entirety of Europe. Does it make sense, in any fashion, to expect them to form a single monolithic entity with no variation in laws?

These things pertain to people's rights and should be decided on at a Federal level, not a state level.

If you left it that way, euthanasia would still be illegal, as would gay marriage. As would medical marijuana as well as recreational marijuana.

Is the right to die something that you value? Are you comfortable rolling back that clock and making it illegal in all 50 states?

Is the right to marry whoever you want to with all the attendant legal benefits something that you value? Would you prefer to go ahead and leave that as it was and make sure that no people of the same sex are allowed to marry?

That's what happens when you remove the right of the states to create laws within their borders.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is not directed at you specifically, but at everyone who attempts to use this as an argument.

Liberals seem to love the concept of redistribution of wealth... but they also seem to hate it in action. Where do the wealthiest people live? Oh yeah - almost all of them are in dense urban areas. Those dense urban areas tend to be more blue overall. "Blue States" are, on the whole, states with large densely populated cities - New York, California, Denver, Seattle, etc. Therefore, those states will be net contributors to the zero-sum pot of money that represents the balance of government taxation and dispensation. "Red States" tend to be states with larger rural populations, and with smaller and less densely populated areas, and tend to have significantly fewer wealthy people. Therefore those states will be net receivers of the zero-sum calculation of federal redistribution.

So what's the deal? Do you want to increase tax on the wealthy? Do you want to help the poor? Or do you want to increase tax on wealthy republicans and redistribute those funds to poor democrats? Are people who live in red states just not the right kind of poor people for you? Is it only poor people in blue states that merit your compassion, and the rest can go rot because they don't think the right way?

Egads. The disconnect between the profoundly held belief that money should be redistributed from the wealthy to the poor and the complaint that poor states get more money redistributed to them from wealthy states is just mind boggling.

It is their hypocrisy that drives people nuts. If they didn't constantly vote against the programs that help their own states disproportionately it would be a lot easier to buy into.

Like when senators who were against federal relief after Hurricane Sandy demand it as soon as their areas get hit with much less damaging hurricanes.

Kind of like the lies of the totally self dependant cowboy totally dependant on the free land being given to him by the government.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is their hypocrisy that drives people nuts. If they didn't constantly vote against the programs that help their own states disproportionately it would be a lot easier to buy into.

That isn't what hypocrisy means. In fact, if they're consistently voting in a way which comports with their stated beliefs, even though it goes against what you think their self-interest should be, then that's basically the opposite of hypocrisy, that's principled action. You just don't like the principle.

Like when senators who were against federal relief after Hurricane Sandy demand it as soon as their areas get hit with much less damaging hurricanes.

But that's not what you described in your first paragraph. It's the opposite of what you described.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That isn't what hypocrisy means. In fact, if they're consistently voting in a way which comports with their stated beliefs, even though it goes against what you think their self-interest should be, then that's basically the opposite of hypocrisy, that's principled action. You just don't like the principle.

They just hate the majority of people in their own districts. Or they don't realize their food stamps are the same project that feeds the worthless lazy blacks.

If they are so against those programs why are they signing up for them?

 

[Ziggurat]

They just hate the majority of people in their own districts.

You're changing the accusation now. Clearly, you aren't engaged in an effort to understand, you're just searching for an attack you think will still.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're changing the accusation now. Clearly, you aren't engaged in an effort to understand, you're just searching for an attack you think will still.

Lots of them clearly are hypocrites, or too ignorant to know their snap benefits are the food stamps those welfare queens get. Some of if not the highest use counties are solidly republican. So they like the food stamps they just think that people like them shouldn't eat.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, although they provide services to the state of Texas as well as their clients. Here's a list from Texas. Quite a few are "faith based."

https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/adoption_and_foster_care/adoption_partners/private.asp#paa

Typical description:
...is a Christian, non-profit child placing agency who believes that every child is uniquely special and deserves to live in a loving and supportive home, free from harm and fear.

If they are private they aren't public servants. As long as the business doesn't violate discrimination laws, they are exempt from rules governing public servants.

 

[Ziggurat]

Lots of them clearly are hypocrites, or too ignorant to know their snap benefits are the food stamps those welfare queens get. Some of if not the highest use counties are solidly republican. So they like the food stamps they just think that people like them shouldn't eat.

Counties are not individuals. Your reasoning is nonsense.

 

[marplots]

If they are private they aren't public servants. As long as the business doesn't violate discrimination laws, they are exempt from rules governing public servants.

I think that's the point of the legislation, isn't it? To allow an exception for faith-based organizations to discriminate in circumstances where secular organizations are not allowed to do so.

And, while not "public servants" per se, these outfits do receive public funding and are highly regulated. But it would be the same for a doctor who accepts Medicaid patients, but not if the patient is gay (hypothetical). So long as the doctor could show she based the preference on her religious values.

At least, that's how I read the legislation. If I misunderstood, straighten me out.

 

[fuelair]

Lots of them clearly are hypocrites, or too ignorant to know their snap benefits are the food stamps those welfare queens get. Some of if not the highest use counties are solidly republican. So they like the food stamps they just think that people like them shouldn't eat.

I think you meant people NOT like them. Otherwise it maketh not full sense!!!!!

 

[ddt]

This makes wonder how german federalism or canadian federalism works. I expect there are numerous state laws that you would find objectionable their as well. Also, you think its barbaric that a nation has states with different laws regarding the death penalty, I assume that means a nation that uniformly allows the death penalty would be civilized?

In Germany, the penal code and the civil code are federal laws. That means that the most important and basic legislation is federal and uniform throughout the country. Also, there are not two parallel legal systems as there are in the US.

 

[ahhell]

I have learned something of Germany. Now I wonder what the point of German federalism is, a legal fiction to maintain Prussian* egos?

*Probably not Prussians, they're likely fine, probably the egos of those in the lesser known states, you know, they ones I can't name. Probably galls them that I can name Prussian but not becky shecky burg.

Anyrate, I meant to comment on the notion that a federal system of shared sovereignty is barbaric which I find odd.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Counties are not individuals. Your reasoning is nonsense.

And yet there are lots of people in those counties to get SNAP and vote solidly republican to put an end to welfare queens like them. They know that until they are starving and watching their kids starve they are not going to do anything about improving their situation.