This is over the U.S. military providing out-of-state transportation for female service members in need of abortion services. Lee is playing to his crowd once again. Personally, I find the resulting holdup in promotions to be deeply unpatriotic.
I agree about the resulting holdup in promotions being unpatriotic. Why doesn't Lee fix that instead of worrying about the female service members in need of abortion services.
"When Pentagon leaders stop fighting America’s enemies And instead fight Americans Waging war on American babies It’s time to cut Pentagon funding"
With recruiting being in the dumps, kind of like the Mormon church, Mike Lee may have a point. Why not make these babies government property in the first place? Getting an abortion would be destruction of government property.
The military can set up nurseries, daycare, and schools to grow little super soldiers who can break down and reassemble an M16 before they are out of diapers.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2023 10:04PM by bradley.
I heard on the radio this morning that the "war on America's babies" is the new messaging from the anti-abortion crowd, since their POV is not playing well with large chunks of the American public.
Somehow that doesn't factor into another mouth to feed.
Social engineering like the kind Mike Lee endorses created the problem of pregnant service members. Now he suggests more of the same without offering any support for actual babies.
>>>"war on America's babies" is the new messaging from the anti-abortion crowd
I don't think that will work well for them since once the fetus is born, they have zero interest in providing anything for actual babies.
I hope they get confronted with questions about how exactly they are helping with health, childcare, food insecurity, etc. for those babies and moms that had forced births.
He and Chris Stewart both reflect that high-pitched, sweet Mormon voice that characterizes church men. The contrast between their tone and their vile ideas is striking.
Mike Lee is a suck ass who has only one aspiration. To be a career politician and live the good life in Washington DC and have the dumb idiots in Utah keep him there.
I really hate it when some politicians refer to it as "the swamp." The District is one of our country's most beautiful and fascinating cities. There is so much to see and do. It's not just cultural treasures, but also good restaurants, theaters, clubs, sports, etc. You can have a very good life here. Plus, it's an easy drive to the Chesapeake Bay or the ocean for a nice weekend trip. Plenty of people move here who never want to move away.
The swamp refers to the political corruption but Washington DC and every other political center is sleazy that way. Great places for good restaurants because there’s plenty of Lobby money being spent.
Mormon politicians aren’t any better. They are just as sleazy as most the others are. With o term limits on the Congress we have lifetime politicians who get very rich in office.
It's a readiness issue. Pregnant service members aren't deployable. In the military, readiness is everything.
I am so sick of male politicians trying to eliminate women's reproductive choices. Especially when they don't even know anything about women or healthcare.
I appreciate your insight, Knotty. I didn't make the connection with the readiness issue. Of course the military would have a vested interest in helping female service members to terminate their pregnancies if that is what the woman wants to do.
My husband is sitting here telling me it also has to do with medical care. If a pregnant service member needs an abortion due to a medical issue, the military medical staff doesn’t want to be waiting around until the service member gets very sick. Military providers who give care to active duty folks are used to a lot of autonomy. It’s one of the perks of the job.
Now, if the person needs an elective abortion, they would have to get it at a facility that isn’t affiliated with the government and pay for it themselves. But yes, they want to be able to help them access those services if the service member wants it.
Anyway, the DOD policy isn’t about accessing abortions. It’s about allowing service members and their families access to reproductive health care in other states if they have to live somewhere where they can’t easily access them. And it includes IVF treatments or other care that aids in achieving pregnancies.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2023 11:43AM by knotheadusc.
I know that medical professionals are complaining that in certain states women are not being allowed medically necessary abortions until the situation is well past the safe stage. Women's lives are being endangered to satisfy clueless legislators and religious whack-a-doodles.
Yes. Those states are already losing doctors, and med students don’t want to get their training there or work there once they're fully licensed. OB-GYNs are leaving, and it won’t be long until other doctors leave. Because who wants to work in a state where you can be arrested just for doing your job?
Ultimately, it will be poor people who pay the price… all so wealthy people— mostly white guys— can stay rich and powerful. It’s disgusting.
I never had a need for an abortion or even birth control, but my education in public health and social work has informed me as to why it’s so important to provide an array of reproductive services to everyone. But mainly, I get especially pissed because many women who have abortions are having them for private and tragic medical reasons that are no one else’s business. Especially when certain lawmakers think an ectopic pregnancy can be reimplanted or have other ridiculous ideas that aren’t based in reality.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2023 01:24AM by knotheadusc.
knotheadusc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But mainly, I get > especially pissed because many women who have > abortions are having them for private and tragic > medical reasons that are no one else’s business. > Especially when certain lawmakers think an > ectopic pregnancy can be reimplanted or have other > ridiculous ideas that aren’t based in reality.
Yes indeed.
It gets scary when people in positions of power don't educate themselves before weighing in with their uninformed opinions about what everybody else should or should not do. Just because you get elected to a certain position, by whatever means achieves such an end, doesn't mean you are suddenly imbued with vast knowledge over and above everybody else. Appropriate advice and information should always be sought.
The ectopic pregnancy reimplantation idea is so ridiculous you can't believe a theoretically supposedly educated person could be so absolutely clueless.
An ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency, not to mention can be astronomically painful. No time for fancy maneuvering. A fertilized egg that is doomed. A woman who could easily bleed out if prompt and effective medical treatment is not administered.
Yes. And I have a very good college friend who is also a devout Christian who takes offense that the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is literally abortion. She had an ectopic pregnancy and later had to have help conceiving. She lost a fallopian tube due to her ectopic pregnancy. She doesn’t want to be lumped in with the so-called “hussies” who have had elective abortions.
Abortion is not a dirty word. For some people, the procedure is a literal lifesaver. And anyone who wants or needs one is entitled to privacy and basic respect. Those who have them for so-called “convenience” reasons, by and large, would do them very early in pregnancy given a choice, and with no harassment.
It just isn’t anyone else’s business… but especially lawmakers who are so clueless about female physiology and anatomy. They have no business making laws about such things. I very likely don’t have to worry about pregnancy anymore… but I feel compelled to speak up for younger women. And now, I am actually glad I never had children.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2023 05:07PM by knotheadusc.
My mom had an ectopic pregnancy at some point before she conceived me. So I'm guessing it was early to mid-1950s, perhaps earlier. She needed the abortion to save her life. She was at a teaching hospital, and told me that she was a regular stop on the medical students' rounds.
The fetus was very much wanted. In some ways, I still think of it as my lost sibling.
The military was the first part of the United States to be organized starting with the Continental Army. The primary purpose of the US Military is to protect our constitutional republic from enemies foreign and domestic. You might as well nullify the US Constitution and welcome a foreign attack to take us out of the world’s geopolitical structure by defunding the military.
If our enemies knew they could launch a nuclear attack on our primary military targets without retaliation they would do so. Utah would be toast because there are a lot of military and government intelligence assets there.
Rubicon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The military was the first part of the United > States to be organized starting with the > Continental Army. The primary purpose of the US > Military is to protect our constitutional republic > from enemies foreign and domestic. You might as > well nullify the US Constitution and welcome a > foreign attack to take us out of the world’s > geopolitical structure by defunding the military.
That's not quite true. The founders of the Constitution distrusted armed forces, which historically had a way of taking over governments. James Madison, the founder most committed to a strong central government, said "The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. . . Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
That's why the constitution says “no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” In short, the founders wanted the army "defunded" as soon as possible after any armed conflicts. The norm was to be no army.
Although you are wrong, therefore, about the founders' expectations and in fact their constitution, it soon became clear that the country needed a standing army and the government worked out a system to get around the constitutional prohibition by simply renewing the authorization routinely every year. Put differently, the country discovered what you have suggested: that the constitutional stipulation was impractical and the country needed a permanent military that was always funded.
Mike Lee is therefore a threat to the United States even if he unwittingly--he has never even suggested his position is the original constitutional one--reprises Madison.
---------------- > If our enemies knew they could launch a nuclear > attack on our primary military targets without > retaliation they would do so.
I'm not sure about that--for a few reasons. First, there would be a severe global reaction to any country that used nuclear weapons. Second, nuclear strikes on the US would destabilize the whole world and result in wars, including nuclear wars, in many different places. No government really wants to learn the hard way what that means for its interests.
Third, over the longer term it does not matter. As the US inevitably reduced its global involvement, countries like Russia and China would extend theirs. They could achieve their goals without the uncertainties inherent in nuclear conflict. Might NK launch a nuclear attack against the United States? Perhaps, but even Pyongyang must pause when considering what Beijing would say about that given the implication that Japan and South Korea would respond by immediately building their own nuclear forces.
------------------ > Utah would be toast > because there are a lot of military and government > intelligence assets there.
Yes, that is what would happen if there were a nuclear war.