Republicans are in big trouble over IVF

[homersapien 11,373]

On 2/28/2024 at 10:14 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

They're probably going to just throw in exceptions for IVF into the current laws. 

 

So now Republican states will have laws that say "Human life and human rights begins at conception...except for IVF...that doesn't really count"

How does that logically vibe? How is a fertilized embryo in a woman's stomach a real human life with legal protections, but a fertilized embryo in a test tube isn't? 

 

Such a law - that ultimately defies logic - will be useful tool for Dominionists to persecute women for randomly chosen "offenses". 

And what about IUDS?

This judge probably thinks he's advanced his own personal beliefs, but I think he's done just the opposite.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 2/28/2024 at 10:29 AM, Cardin Drake said:

Texas has outlawed abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected.  Practically, that means no abortion providers are left in the state. But IVF is not a problem. 

Also illogical.

[homersapien 11,373]

19 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

One because it contained a lot of other stuff not related to the border and two because the part for the border isn't needed. Biden has all the power he needs now without anything new. So why isn't he enforcing the current immigration laws?

Surely you aren't serious.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Surely you aren't serious.

Sure I'm serious. Can you answer the question?

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

On 3/9/2024 at 1:39 PM, Son of A Tiger said:

Sure I'm serious. Can you answer the question?

I have a question. 

If the border issue is so serious and Biden isn't using his Executive authority to fix it then why didn't Republicans want to pass this law to help force his hands? 

 

You blame Biden for not fixing the boarder.....but you'll give Republican politicians a pass for not doing anything either when they had the opportunity? 

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

5 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I have a question. 

If the border issue is so serious and Biden isn't using his Executive authority to fix it then why didn't Republicans want to pass this law to help force his hands? 

 

You blame Biden for not fixing the boarder.....but you'll give Republican politicians a pass for not doing anything either when they had the opportunity? 

What you don’t seem to understand is Biden doesn’t want to fix the border.  That law allowed 5000 illegals in each day (which is just under 2 million a year) and codified it into law.  That is not fixing the border.

When we found out that Biden has been flying illegals into the country under the cover of night, it is obvious he doesn’t want to *fix* the border.  He will not do anything except blame the Republicans until November.

I feel the Republicans deserve our respect by turning this bill down.  They saved us.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

14 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What you don’t seem to understand is Biden doesn’t want to fix the border.  That law allowed 5000 illegals in each day (which is just under 2 million a year) and codified it into law.  That is not fixing the border.

When we found out that Biden has been flying illegals into the country under the cover of night, it is obvious he doesn’t want to *fix* the border.  He will not do anything except blame the Republicans until November.

I feel the Republicans deserve our respect by turning this bill down.  They saved us.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000-people-to-illegally-enter-the-us-daily/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2024/02/06/5000-migrants-day-lie-kill-sinema-border-bill/72498301007/

 

[auburnatl1 4,920]

On 3/9/2024 at 12:24 PM, homersapien said:

Also illogical.

Im generally pro choice but why is that illogical? There is no heartbeat issue in the ivf process. Just curious.

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000-people-to-illegally-enter-the-us-daily/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2024/02/06/5000-migrants-day-lie-kill-sinema-border-bill/72498301007/

 

From your source:

The bill raises the legal standard to pass initial asylum screenings, expedites the asylum process and funds additional detention space. It also compels the Homeland Security secretary to use an emergency authority to bar people from requesting asylum if officials record 5,000 encounters a day over seven consecutive days. But that’s not the same as accepting 5,000 people into the U.S. daily.

My comment:  So we are letting in around 10,000 a day and you expect, because of this law, it will be curtailed to 5,000 overnight?  So one day 5,000 come over and the other 5,000 wait overnight and are the first to come over the next day and so on and so on.  Or probably what would happen is in a 4 day period 40,000 cross and Mayorkas is *compelled* to use an emergency authority which is what exactly?

Another source you linked:

Under the new immigration bill, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims. After negotiators conferred with the Border Patrol and officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they crafted the legislation to give DHS the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border encounters. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure.

My comment:  I highlighted the *could* close the border.  The way Mayorkas has done his job, I don’t trust him to shut down the border.

I noticed you didn’t mention the 320,000 illegals being flown in.  How would they fit into this equation?  No mention of that in the law because no one knew about it when it was written.  Where is the transparency from the most transparent administration in history?  Bottom line is the Republicans don’t trust this administration enough to uphold the law even if they approve the law.  After all, Biden is going around the SCOTUS to give taxpayer money for college debt.  He does what he wants to do.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

My comment:  So we are letting in around 10,000 a day and you expect, because of this law, it will be curtailed to 5,000 overnight?  So one day 5,000 come over and the other 5,000 wait overnight and are the first to come over the next day and so on and so on.  Or probably what would happen is in a 4 day period 40,000 cross and Mayorkas is *compelled* to use an emergency authority which is what exactly?

 

So now the problem isn't the law itself, it's just that you don't understand how they'd enforce the law and don't believe they'd follow it anyway. 

 

That's a lot different than claiming the "Law would allow 5,000 illegals a day which would be 2 million a year" 

 

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Another source you linked:

Under the new immigration bill, the Department of Homeland Security could close the border if too many migrants were showing up with asylum claims. After negotiators conferred with the Border Patrol and officials at the Department of Homeland Security, they crafted the legislation to give DHS the authority to close the border if they reached a seven-day average of 4,000 or more border encounters. A seven-day average of 5,000 or more would mandate a border closure. If the number exceeded 8,500 in a single day, there would also be a mandatory border closure.

My comment:  I highlighted the *could* close the border.  The way Mayorkas has done his job, I don’t trust him to shut down the border.

I noticed you didn’t mention the 320,000 illegals being flown in.  How would they fit into this equation?  No mention of that in the law because no one knew about it when it was written.  Where is the transparency from the most transparent administration in history?  Bottom line is the Republicans don’t trust this administration enough to uphold the law even if they approve the law.  After all, Biden is going around the SCOTUS to give taxpayer money for college debt.  He does what he wants to do.

So the Republican response is to do nothing and then just continue to cry that nothing is happening. And you applaud that as good governance? 

 

I'll stress again. The border patrol union, who has a vested interest in a secure border and is very conservative politically approved of the bill and wanted it passed. 

Republicans like going to the border for photo ops and campaign speeches, but when it comes to actually hashing out and supporting legislation that could help the problem at the border Republicans just sit on their hands and complain.

And apparently some of their voters are perfectly fine with that and don't expect them to do anything but complain. 

Edited March 11 by CoffeeTiger

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

11 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

That's a lot different than claiming the "Law would allow 5,000 illegals a day which would be 2 million a year" 

No, it’s semantics.  I don’t trust how it will be applied and believe 5,000 a day will somehow cross.  Illegal migration has been encouraged for 3 years now, it isn’t even feasible to expect this administration to limited and/or stopped overnight.

18 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

So the Republican response is to do nothing and then just continue to cry that nothing is happening. And you applaud that as good governance? 

No, the Republican response is consider the H.R. 2 bill that was passed to the Senate last May.

 

19 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I'll stress again. The border patrol union, who has a vested interest in a secure border and is very conservative politically approved of the bill and wanted it passed. 

And the border patrol union stated they supported it because it was better than what is in place now and any restriction is better than none.  It wasn’t a whole hearted approval.

 

21 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Republicans like going to the border for photo ops and campaign speeches, but when it comes to actually hashing out and supporting legislation that could help the problem at the border Republicans just sit on their hands and complain.

And apparently some of their voters are perfectly fine with that and don't expect them to do anything but complain. 

As mentioned above the H.R. 2 bill should be seriously looked at.  Why are the Democrats ignoring a bill the House approved that was sent to the Senate to discuss?   Their voters want a serious border law.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

And the border patrol union stated they supported it because it was better than what is in place now and any restriction is better than none.  It wasn’t a whole hearted approval.

 

Ok.....and Republicans countered with..."Actually, no we'd prefer for it to stay the way it is and complain about it" 

 

That's what my entire point is. 

 

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

As mentioned above the H.R. 2 bill should be seriously looked at.  Why are the Democrats ignoring a bill the House approved that was sent to the Senate to discuss?   Their voters want a serious border law.

Because HR 2 is a fantasy land bill written by Republicans for Republicans with nobody expecting any Democrats to support it. It was never written to be passed.

 

The most recent bill that Republicans rejected was an actual bi-partisan bill written up by both Republicans and Democrats that gave neither side exactly what they wanted. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

19 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Because HR 2 is a fantasy land bill written by Republicans for Republicans with nobody expecting any Democrats to support it. It was never written to be passed.

 

The most recent bill that Republicans rejected was an actual bi-partisan bill written up by both Republicans and Democrats that gave neither side exactly what they wanted. 

Why not use H.R. 2 as a starting point and negotiate from there?  That would be bipartisan.  As it is, that bipartisan bill brought by the Senate was a Democrat bill and that is why it was never voted on.  Back to the drawing table.

You never did address the 320,000 illegals being flown into the country.  With that knowledge I hope the Republicans refuse to negotiate until that practice is stopped.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why not use H.R. 2 as a starting point and negotiate from there?  That would be bipartisan.

Can you point out where Republicans have actually said they want changes or negotiations to HR2? To have a bipartisan deal you have to have BOTH sides willing to negotiate and compromise. There is 0 indication that Republicans care anything about compromising anything on HR2 to give it a chance of passage. 

 

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 As it is, that bipartisan bill brought by the Senate was a Democrat bill and that is why it was never voted on.  

 

No, it wasn't. It was drawn up and presented by a Democrat, a Republican and an independent. The Republican leaning border enforcement agencies were for it, progressive pro-immigration entities hated the bill and were thrilled that MAGA Republicans killed it. 

It's the very definition of bi-partisan. Nobody got everything and extremes on both sides hate it. 

Just so happens the extremes on the Republican side are the ones who control GOP policy and decision making in todays government. 

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You never did address the 320,000 illegals being flown into the country.  With that knowledge I hope the Republicans refuse to negotiate until that practice is stopped.

nothing to address. Those aren't illegal's. They are screened and have sponsors and are given legal admittance into the US. Much better than unknowns sneaking across the border. 

Edited March 11 by CoffeeTiger

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Im generally pro choice but why is that illogical? There is no heartbeat issue in the ivf process. Just curious.

Heartbeat does not indicate "life"/soul/personhood or however you want to term it.  That should be evident considering people can be brain dead - the real determiner of "life" - with a beating heart.  There are many examples o flife without a heartbeat  - i.e.: heart/lung machine during surgery - and death with one.

(Not to mention that the "heartbeat" in a fetus is not actually a heart, but a clump of cardiac muscle cells that will eventually develop into a anatomically correct heart.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9225347/

"The heart of CS-10 embryos has a relatively simple form design, which resembles a tubular blood vessel. At the beginning of CS-10, the heart is a relatively short and straight tube aligned along the ventral midline of the foregut (Figure 1A). Up to the end of CS-10, the tubular heart undergoes a considerable lengthening and changes its 3-dimensional configuration from a straight to a C-shaped heart loop (Figure 1B–D)."The heart of CS-10 embryos has a relatively simple form design, which resembles a tubular blood vessel. At the beginning of CS-10, the heart is a relatively short and straight tube aligned along the ventral midline of the foregut (Figure 1A). Up to the end of CS-10, the tubular heart undergoes a considerable lengthening and changes its 3-dimensional configuration from a straight to a C-shaped heart loop (Figure 1B–D).

Bottom line, the whole idea  of a direct association between a beating "heart" and "life" is totally arbitrary with historical origins that precede modern medicine. 

Now brain function is a different story. If there is such a thing as a (religious) soul or (legal) person-hood, the brain is where it starts or ends, IMO.

Edited March 11 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

Anyone who seriously believes the bipartisan failed because of the substantive content instead of crass political gamesmanship is too mind-boggling stupid/gullible to bother engaging.

(Which is exactly why I have IM4 on "ignore". )

Thanks again Coffee for doing the work I am too impatient to do!  

 

Edited March 12 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

12 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

There is 0 indication that Republicans care anything about compromising anything on HR2 to give it a chance of passage. 

If Schumer won’t even put it on the floor, how do you negotiate?  Don’t forget Schumer runs the Senate.

 

16 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

No, it wasn't. It was drawn up and presented by a Democrat, a Republican and an independent. The Republican leaning border enforcement agencies were for it, progressive pro-immigration entities hated the bill and were thrilled that MAGA Republicans killed it. 

It sounds like there were enough Democrats that didn’t like it and that is why Schumer didn’t bring it to the floor for a vote.  Republicans are always their scape goat.

 

18 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

nothing to address. Those aren't illegal's. They are screened and have sponsors and are given legal admittance into the US. Much better than unknowns sneaking across the border. 

Then why the need for secrecy?  Something doesn’t smell right about it.  That is a lot of carter flights that the taxpayers are paying for without their knowledge.