Putting a bunch of grifting "wellness" folks in charge of determining what insurers have to cover ... what could possibly go wrong?

Can the constitutional scholar please point to the part of the constitution that guarantees anyone a right to abortion?

#2 | Posted by lfthndthrds

No, but I can point to the part where you're a stupid f(*& who thinks things have to be explicitly mentioned.

Because otherwise, none of what we say here would be covered under the first amendment. Bans on gun parts/upgrades wouldn't hold up because they're not explicitly mentioned in the 2A.

In any case, that's not the point of the thread, dumbs*&^.

#8 | Posted by lfthndthrds

I hate to break it to you, but you don't have a seat at any table in any room of any debate that requires morality.

When Democrats had a chance to do what they knew they needed to do to protect abortion, they did nothing, and you kept voting for them.

a. They're better than your s*&^bag team.
b. Abortion isn't that high on my list of priorities.

You have nothing but spoon-fed assumptions of what "democrats" believe or should believe.

It's a bargaining chip and always has been "oh look, they're going to take away abortion if we don't win the house, senate" or what ever federal election is coming up.

You'll get no argument out of me.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't have a seat at any table in any room of any debate that requires an IQ over 70.

LOL

While it's fun discussing your canned talking points about abortion, that was only a tangential mention in the article. The bigger issue is probably mentioned too far down for you to have read it...

While the task force will still be there in name, its credibility"based on both the vigorous vetting process of its members and the detailed, rigorous review of evidence that takes years to complete"will be shot. As with ACIP, the new members are unlikely to go through any real selection process, and as with the recent ACIP recommendations on vaccines press their own opinions as recommendations against scientific fact.

More worrisome is that these charlatans will now have their thumbs on the scales of what gets paid for by insurers in the United States. Think of someone like RFK Jr. adviser Calley Means, who rails against the "corrupt" US healthcare system while hawking dietary supplements, herbal remedies, and other wellness products on the side. Imagine him or any number of similar people in RFK Jr.'s orbit on the USPSTF. The grift is strong with these people.

While I'm looking forward to my insurance covering Himalayan salt lamps, resonating crystals and all manner of unregulated ground up [insert dubious plant here], I prefer real medicine and real experts making these decisions.

It should be. If they can make you carry a rapists baby inside you they can make you do anything.

#27 | Posted by snoofy

It's too myopic for me. There's a broader umbrella of simply leaving people alone if their actions aren't a danger or threat to others. Then again, I'm a rare breed in politics by being a lefty small L libertarian.

Personally, I think the incessant drumbeat over abortion turns a lot of middle voters off who are all about staying out of people's business but find the fervor of the abortion crowd a little ghoulish.

JPW can't be bothered with caring about women whose lives don't affect him.

Prioritizing other issues over abortion means I don't care about women.

Huh.

News to me.

He regularly speaks out against liberal policies.
#35 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I typically have a more tempered view and am willing to walk away when I think something has gone too far.

That doesn't by any means mean I'm all for GOP policy.