The abortion law builds on legislation passed in 2010 that represented a major shift for a traditionally Catholic country, transforming Spain into one of the most progressive countries in Europe on reproductive rights. Spain's constitutional court last week rejected a challenge by the right-wing Popular Party against allowing abortions in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.
The debate will be heated in Spain, I imagine, as the conservative opposition pushes back. My daughter had horrible menstrual pain during her adolescence and young adulthood. I'm certain that she would have benefitted from that time.
This will be my 50th year to vote. The United States already has voting laws. The U.S. constitution already states that only citizens have the right to vote in Federal elections.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 expanded Americans voting opportunities and voter registration: signup to vote along with driver license application: apply at all offices that provide public assistance and all offices that provide state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities; register to vote by mail using mail-in-forms developed by each state and the Election Assistance Commission ( National Mail Voter Registration Form) along with state responsibility for voter registration roles.
Eligibility requirements vary by state, but generally to register to vote, you must be:
• A U.S. citizen
• At least 18 years old by Election Day
• Meet certain residency requirements.
Voting application requires one to confirm they are a US citizen and informs of fines if found provided false information.
Federal law requires one to show proof of identification the first time you vote. Proof of identification includes:
Because the ensuing debate distracts from voter suppression efforts that work better: closing polling places, election board corruption, restricted voting hours, last minute purges of voter rolls ... the list goes on and on.
I'm against it because I know illegal immigrants will walk across the open border, register to vote and vote Democrat. Then get free stuff, take my job, and commit crimes. But a vote is a vote.
But really, I'm not against it. Florida already has the requirement that you must be a US citizen to vote. It's been a long time but I think you have to have a social security number that matches your birth certificate, or some kind of citizen and identity proof to get an ID and we have to present our ID/driver's license to vote. We don't need a federal law and doubtful other states do either. meh.
It's clearly a political move. Republicans want to paint themselves as tough on illegal immigration and fixing our fraudulent voting system. Yawn
Trump started this when he was present saying we know for a fact that 3 to 5 million non-citizens voted. This was made up and he never proved his facts.
Currently I think the speaker is just being political.
It's not that far fetched given how corrupt they are. But Trump has said in some of his rallies that this is happening and there is no evidence of that. Our intelligence community fails us in many ways, but speculation is one thing and making things up is another.
The term "evidence" is often used here when one really means "proof."
I'd agree there isn't proof, but I'd say that prison gangs from a corrupt country on another continent are here committing crimes is evidence to back up Trump's claim.
Maybe his claim is exaggerated, or maybe it isn't. Makes little difference to most of us. The bottom line is there millions of illegal aliens here who shouldn't be and some of them are violent criminals.
Actually, from where I sit, those are exactly the same. Other posters have pointed out that public school systems are, indeed, part of the government. There are alternative ways to obtain the banned books or read the offal published by Facebook and Twitter. Also, nobody is getting arrested for having the wrong book lying around or the wrong memes on their phones. So, no one is "dictating" what you read.
I'm entitled to speak or write anything I want. I'm not entitled to a platform. Capitalism 101. If you don't like the terms of the contract, you get to go elsewhere. Write a book. Start your own website. Get on local talk radio. Buy a soapbox. Join AN.
I'm not sure what your point is. There is alternate ways to read books so that's not the same as book banning.
Then neither is jawboning a privately owned website to prevent inappropriate - and dangerous - material from reaching other vulnerable groups.
Preventing inappropriate books from the hands of children is allot different than the government in power pressuring and intimidating a private company to censor users.
It's interesting to me how banning books from libraries is not banning books in your opinion.
What in the world ever gave you the impression that I might have been unaware that fascists in Germany banned books? What do you think I'm pretending?
Conservative groups are getting books removed from libraries. That's not opinion, that's fact. Are you pretending that book banning is not happening or are you pretending that it's not "conservatives" doing the banning?
Removing inappropriate books from the hands of children isn't banning the book. It's making books that children should not have access to. Not removing books from all media and preventing everyone from reading them.
But sure. Strict adherence to a definition is another example of propaganda and fallacy
Banning books by the government to prevent all citizens from accessing them (like in Nazi Germany )isn't even near the same as banning books from school libraries.
So yes both are "banning books" but they are not even remotely the same. Unless you believe it's the same as Nazis banning books that do not dehumanized jews and anything that doesn't support nazi ideology. The same as banning books from libraries?
The bottom line is there millions of illegal aliens here who shouldn't be and some of them are violent criminals.
And there were millions of them when Trump was president and the president before him and the president before him. I'm not saying I disagree with that statement because there certainly have been greater than 10 million illegal immigrants here for decades and surely some of them are criminals.
Preventing inappropriate books from the hands of children is allot different than the government in power pressuring and intimidating a private company to censor users.
No, it isn't. Both are examples of government being used to limit speech. Why is it bad when the CDC uses jawboning to fight a lethal pandemic but OK when religious extremists use school boards and state legislators to reinforce their particular religious views? (What that says about their "family values" is a whole 'nother thread.)
Why don't you tell us why you keep asking and what answer you have to the question?
I probably didn't make this as clear as I could have.
I'm not trying to argue whether the law is necessary or not. You said the Republicans are just playing politics with this issue. And, they are. My point is that the Democrats are just as much. If the law won't do anything or is unnecessary, the Dems should just agree to it to get the bill passed. But, they don't want to.
Whenever some legislation gets held up, it's always because the Republicans are playing politics. Many here can't see through their liberal tinted glasses that the Democrats do the same.
And there were millions of them when Trump was president and the president before him and the president before him. I'm not saying I disagree with that statement because there certainly have been greater than 10 million illegal immigrants here for decades and surely some of them are criminals.
Things are worse then they have ever been. I think you know that. If I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to elaborate.
No, it isn't. Both are examples of government being used to limit speech. Why is it bad when the CDC uses jawboning to fight a lethal pandemic but OK when religious extremists use school boards and state legislators to reinforce their particular religious views? (What that says about their "family values" is a whole 'nother thread.)
Beerman said:
Things are worse then they have ever been. I think you know that. If I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to elaborate.
Perhaps a schooboard could be seen as a branch of government. However a school.is a public entity. Not a private entity. There is a huge difference in power between state schoolboards and the US government. LOL And a school and Facebook.
It's religious extreemism to not want children to have access to inappropriate material?
heron, ASN, RN
4,665 Posts
Because the ensuing debate distracts from voter suppression efforts that work better: closing polling places, election board corruption, restricted voting hours, last minute purges of voter rolls ... the list goes on and on.