Well, Catholics, for one, as I said before. Though I know you were using "Who cares" colloquially to mean "nobody should care," instead of literally not being aware of anyone caring, but I'm proving a point here that there ARE people with other beliefs on the matter than you and I.
The fetuses also prefer life - when instruments enter the womb, the fetus reacts by pulling away from them, increasing their heart rate, and other typical fight or flight reactions.
Wait, are you a libertarian now, or a Mincome advocate? I'm super-hazy due to my chronically bad memory, but I remember you being in favor of a strong welfare state in the usual sense of the word, which is inevitably coupled with restrictions ("nanny state" as GB affectionally calls it) for the furtherance of public health. I'm likely wrong here on your beliefs.
Oh, no, you remember correctly, Charlie's a die hard supersocialist who thinks the government needs to be in charge of everything from paying for health care to mowing his lawn. But he also thinks it's important to shield everyone from the consequences of their actions without judgement. So, yeah, booze it up, sex it up, drug it up, go wild, and then the government will pay to have you stitched back together so you can do it tomorrow.
Same reason I didn't post it. agoodcartoon mostly posts unintentionally bad cartoons with redeeming captions. If his caption is "jfc" or nada, it's usually a sign it's something like this.
"Life is pain. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something." -The Dread Pirate Roberts
So if life sucks and there's no fixing it, what's the point?
"No fixing it" is quite a leap. There are moments of joy, and fulfillment to be found if you are smart, lucky, and earnest in your endeavors. But to expect it to be nothing but non-stop fun and frivolity with no work, pain, or responsibility is folly of the highest order, and to be comfortably kept by a master who controls you is to surrender your humanity. A government which is powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.
Leftists don't go to jail.
Don't worry, I stole one from Bill Ayers. I'm untouchable now!
Well... I'm not an accountant... buuuuut I can tell you that happens in more than one place I've worked.
No, Gas got it right - technically. (It's my night job.)
How about, not de-fund the prison system, but take it out of the "For Profit" morass that it's become?
They have enough private funds to cover the abortions because the incidental overlaps are paid for by the subsidized portion. It's actually possible without violating the Hyde amendment at all. You have to buy the medical supplies and pay the doctors explicitly from the "abortion" side's money, but you can pay for unified facilities, advertising, office and administration staff, furniture, legal expenses, so on and so forth from the side that is able to be subsidized. If you had to spin off the abortion practice, as Stienman suggested, into its own independent entity, you'd have a lot of increased expenses that would be redundant in a unified organization, and then the "private funds" might not be sufficient.
So, de-fund the ethically questionable parts?
I thought they gave him a deal in order to get his testimony on the partner.
I'll add one-
I thought the deal was because he owed up to it and agreed to up-front 6-figure reparations for the victims. Haven't been following this closely though, can't say it's my preferred light reading.
I don't know enough about this law or the medical ramifications of the abortion process to opine as to whether the law has merit or not. But my initial assumption is that this is an end run to reduce the number of abortion clinics on a technicality rather than overtly. My comment about the funding was meant as a tangential footnote, but it kinda took the discussion in a new, somewhat unrelated direction.
Wow. Yes, companies monitor the credit cards of employees very closely. An accident here or there is understandable but because expenses on cards are used to track things like office expenses and cost of goods/freight, it makes the company numbers look bad if people do this.
Yes, but now our lives are currently owned by insurance companies that believe that protecting their profit margin is more important than protecting the lives entrusted to them and it's not simply a matter of finding the one company that is legit when all of them are run in this manner. At least the government has greater societal reasons to consider when it denies care; the insurance companies mainly do it to protect their jobs and to enrich a few wealthy share holders. It's basically feudalism, except the mechanism of control is medicine, not land, food, or security. Fuck, it's LITERALLY a protection racket but it works by denying you coverage instead of breaking your legs. Why do you think gangsters call it "buying insurance"?
One fairly rehearsed counter-argument to this is to say that the root issue is the permeability of outside money in U.S. politics, which leads to legislation that regulates industries in a way that hurts the consumer by limiting their choices (e.g. you can't easily start your own insurance company due to the existing regulation). If regulation were removed, or limited to basic/benign principles, more choices would appear in the marketplace and people would hopefully choose the company that functions best for them, leading it to flourish. Or maybe they'll choose wrong because humans are idiots, but I digress.
At least the insurance companies ostensibly are beholden to oversight, and there are competing insurance companies - there aren't competing federal governments. And I don't agree that "all the insurance companies are the same," we just had a great big upheaval in our office because, to try and shave a nickel's profit, our owner tried to move us from Blue Cross/Blue Shield to Scott & White health insurance, which is well known here in Texas for being utterly awful. Thankfully, the pushback was enough to prevent the move.
