Originally published at: Abortion rights? Women should think about "other things," says mansplaining congressman | Boing Boing
…
3 Likes
A woman who needs an abortion and is able to get one can eventually move on to other things.
A woman who needs an abortion but is denied access to an abortion will be impacted by that lack of access for the rest of her life.
32 Likes
28 Likes
“Please, won’t somebody think of the illegals.”
I’m rather surprised he forgot to mention all the drag queens corrupting children in the local library, which is apparently the number one challenge facing the USA today. Did he not get the briefing memo or something?
23 Likes
Dude…
15 Likes
Gonzales was censured by the state GOP for not marching in lockstep with the fascist wing of the party.
Don’t know why he’s bending the knee for them now…
10 Likes
Whenever one of these jokers tries to switch to another topic, in this case “the border”, it means they don’t have any kind of defense for their position.
Also, saying garbage like “let’s have those real conversations”-- WTF is that. I’ve heard that one before too. Call them on that shit. “Oh, I get it. . . . these things you want to talk about are the real issues, and everything you don’t want to talk about is not a real issue?”
10 Likes
Interview question:
Gonzales’ reply:
You mean, a conversation about issues such as the one the interviewer just asked you about…those kinds of conversations?
21 Likes
He’s doing so because he was slapped across the nose with a rolled up newspaper and now he knows better.
18 Likes
I hope Tony Gonzales’ wife unfucks this guy the rest of his days.
5 Likes
“Sure, I’ve just stabbed you in the guts, but don’t dwell on that - you have a busy life with a lot of things going on, let’s talk about something else!”
“Well, you had a busy life.”
8 Likes
Translation:
“Since I can’t defend the indefensable, I’m going to deflect the converstion away from that aspect of women’s health that I don’t like. and bring up irrelevant talking points instead.”
Nothing at all original about this tactic, of course, but it would be nice for an interviewer to hold their feet in the fire when the interviewee tries it… call them out for their cowardice & weasel words.
Too bad the Media, for the most part, seems complicit with the fascist agenda; FOX is just the only one blatant about it.
SILENCE=AGREEMENT
10 Likes
Ok, instead of abortion, let’s talk about gun control… Oh, wait, you don’t want to talk about that either? How about a reasonable discourse on climate change? No?
The right doesn’t want to discuss anything that would benefit people other than themselves.
11 Likes
$10 says he doesn’t know the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage.
7 Likes
An abortion is when a woman does it alone, it’s a miscarriage when a man orders her to.
6 Likes
The right would like to talk about three things-- the border, “grooming”, and hunter biden.
4 Likes
The most charitable reading of his avoidance tactic - in light of these past censures - is that he may actually be to the left of his colleagues on abortion rights and so in his own way is refusing to toe the line by avoiding the subject. Perhaps he hopes someone else will fix things. Still makes him a coward and a fascist enabler (AKA fascist…) if he continues to support the party.
4 Likes
Because he doesn’t give a shit about women? I mean, just because he had other good votes for causes we care about doesn’t he’s good across the board. Plenty of men are pro-gun control and believe women should be in the home and the thumb of the men in their lives.
7 Likes
well, the FDA and Danco have filed appeals to the fifth circuit
FDA
Danco
In their briefs, they both used an analogy tailored to the 5th circuit prejudices:
FDA
The District Court’s other associational-standing rationales fare no better. The need to treat patients cannot suffice to confer standing anytime a doctor objects to the underlying cause of a patient’s condition. Consider the ramifications: ER doctors could challenge laws easing handgun restrictions that made them “feel complicit” in treating patients injured by gun violence; pediatricians could challenge regulations rescinding air pollution controls that caused them to treat asthmatic children, taking time away from other patients; the list goes on.
Danco
The court concluded that the plaintiff organizations have standing to sue on behalf of their members “because they allege adverse events from chemical abortion drugs can overwhelm the medical system.” Add.7. But plaintiffs rely on only a handful of alleged incidents over two decades, none of which meaningfully interfered with a member’s medical practice. Under the court’s approach, doctors would have standing to challenge FDA approval of any drug; they would likewise have standing to challenge any other federal action that might injure third parties. An association of doctors could, for example, challenge the licensing of federal firearms dealers, or allegedly inadequate highway safety standards, on the theory that some individuals may be injured and seek treatment from the association’s members.
11 Likes
You mean other things like rallying your constituents to vote you out of office, Tony?
3 Likes
