Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pmabraham t1_iudiiyw wrote

So, the extremely rich governor who...

  1. Instituted unscientific lockdowns of most businesses while allowing elective abortion clinics, Target, Wall Mart, and large businesses to stay open....
  2. Who along with Dr. Levine forced ill equipped nursing homes to take Covid-19 positive patients from hospitals....
  3. Who is on record stating they will go against court orders regarding mail in ballots...

Can be trusted to protect our elections?

−45

Hopeful_Scholar398 t1_iudji32 wrote

You're right he should do nothing. That way when Republicans lose they can cry about how it's all fraud because there was no security and antifa was stuffing ballot boxes full of mules or some such.

26

pmabraham t1_iudlxa5 wrote

He should obey the court order regarding mail in ballots! Start there and prove that he's a person of integrity which would be a change for him.

−28

HonBurgher t1_iudw6fq wrote

The "court order" I think you're referring to undid the Third Circuit's ruling that said to count mail-in ballots that were only lacking a handwritten date. The U.S. Supreme Court didn't say the Third Circuit was wrong, but that the appeal had been moot because the candidate challenging the practice had conceded their election and had nothing left to be fighting for. So the federal appeals court ruling that said those ballots should count was tossed out on a technicality, returning things to the status that had existed beforehand (which is to say, people were disagreeing over whether missing dates were reason to throw out ballots).

But there had been another state court ruling that independently said to count undated ballots, so state elections officials said to keep following that order until told otherwise -- which the state Supreme Court is considering now.

15

pmabraham t1_iueonav wrote

https://www.law360.com/articles/1538693

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-backs-republican-in-pennsylvania-mail-in-ballots-case_4788521.html

−8

Atrocious_1 t1_iuexwr6 wrote

Epoch times lmao you disinfo bots aren't even trying

11

HonBurgher t1_iuf337r wrote

From the very Law360 article you’re citing:

> Ari Savitzky of the American Civil Liberties Union, who represents Lehigh County voters, told Law360 that the high court's vacating of the Third Circuit's ruling was done on "purely procedural grounds."

"As for November, it remains clear that, under state law and federal law, timely mail ballots where a voter merely forgets to handwrite an inconsequential date on the outer envelope must be counted," Savitzky said in an email. "Nothing about today's procedural decision changes that."

The RNC has since asked the state Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue, since the US Supreme Court and the lower state court rulings still left room for doubt in their minds.

The US Supreme Court ruling was not as cut-and-dry as some partisan sources are making it out to be, and the state believes it has its orders from the lower court.

9

Super_C_Complex t1_iuhbcyb wrote

So, honest question.

What's the concern with an undated ballot when the date fun the USPS is gonna be more accurate anyways?

I would think that would be more secure than any hand when date given the number of times landlords tried screwing me with fake dates

1

pmabraham t1_iuhbqss wrote

If there was not proof of significant ballot harvesting over the past several years, there would be no concern.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaFqVwX9utk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osgXyv72nw8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDo-IfqaJSk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTPm7mvOAmg

The list goes on.

−1

Super_C_Complex t1_iuhc4kt wrote

So the concern is dropped off ballots then. I understand.

I disagree that it is a concern or that there is a significant amount of voter fraud that occurs that way, or that having a hand written date would be any sort of barrier to that, but I understand.

Thank you for your response.

4

steelceasar t1_iuispy9 wrote

Use your brain man. You are literally letting Epoch Times drip feed conspiracies straight into your head. That publication is literally an extension of right wing Chinese extremism.

1

AmberWaves80 t1_iudxaeh wrote

Abortion clinics aren’t elective, anymore than your primary care physician.

7

pmabraham t1_iueom3w wrote

Yes, they are elective services since it is extremely rare a woman needs an abortion to save her life. And since ALL medically induced abortions kills another human being on purpose, it does matter.

−11

Tina_Las_Vegas t1_iuf00gi wrote

~15% is not extremely rare…which is the stat of women who have abortions for health issues. Whether it be their own health or the health of the fetus.

Also it’s none of your god damn business

8

pmabraham t1_iufd4i5 wrote

https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/HealthStatistics/VitalStatistics/Documents/Pennsylvania_Annual_Abortion_Report_2020.pdf ---> 32,123 abortions of which per the state document, ONLY 162 are classified as "Pre-existing Medical Conditions Which Would Complicate Pregnancy" (which doesn't give the % of risk). 162 / 32123 = 0.5% were for the mother's health. Next time, please try not to lie when there are reports to verify the truth.

−1

Tina_Las_Vegas t1_iufge9u wrote

I was talking nationally not in a state level and I was confusing the stat. An abortion ban could increase maternal fatality over 20%

https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2021/09/22/study-shows-abortion-ban-may-lead-21-increase-pregnancy-related-deaths

3

pmabraham t1_iufgsh5 wrote

Incorrect. Each state department of health publishes it's own data. I presented Pennsylvania's data. It mirrors the NATOINAL level of less than 1% of all abortions done for the "mother's health." What if studies don't count over reality of what is actually happening.

1

Tina_Las_Vegas t1_iufi6f1 wrote

Pre-existing conditions are not the only thing that would require a medically necessary abortion. A condition that pregnancy brought on, a miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, or a required hysterectomy(an additional stat in the report you attached) would also be medically necessary reasons and obviously not considered in the 162 figure you are using. Additionally any situation where the fetus has already been determined to be not viable would not be pre-existing and would be medically necessary for the health of the mother.

5

pmabraham t1_iufncqf wrote

The removal of a non-viable fetus (i.e. one that IS NOT alive) is not an abortion procedure. A medically induced abortion kills a living unborn baby.

0

Tina_Las_Vegas t1_iug5aaq wrote

Actually yes it is. This article also reminded me that an ectopic pregnancy is another example of something that is not a pre-existing condition that would require an abortion for the life of the mother.

“Medical providers often refer to miscarriages as spontaneous abortions, or by its subcategories including missed, incomplete and inevitable abortions (see Glossary).”

Link for quote.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/understanding-pregnancy-loss-in-the-context-of-abortion-restrictions-and-fetal-harm-laws/

2

pmabraham t1_iuhajzt wrote

Since you went with a very liberal news source, try https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-never-saves-a-mothers-life-ireland-ads-clarify-ectopic-treatment-not-abortion/

1

Tina_Las_Vegas t1_iuhflyo wrote

Not the US. Try again

Edit: KFF is a non-partisan research group and I at least went with a research org instead of some for profit greedy corporation.

1

pmabraham t1_iuhjooe wrote

Lifestyle news is nonprofit try again

1

Tina_Las_Vegas t1_iuipy7w wrote

Still not referring the good ole US of A.

I no longer have time to waste on you. Enjoy your life.

1

pmabraham t1_iufa4u7 wrote

God is good AND murder is everyone's business. Please cite the source of the 15%.

−7

Tina_Las_Vegas t1_iufgi4f wrote

But also this is false.

God is in fact a murderer and not good. There are several examples in the Bible of this. Noah would be the most well known example.

3

pmabraham t1_iufgmth wrote

Your opinion, and again you don't have a source for the 15%...

0

Tina_Las_Vegas t1_iufh2s6 wrote

You live based on stories in the Bible which you believe to be facts. So what I said is a fact. I got it from your book.

3

amoliski t1_iugz3lz wrote

If abortion is wrong, why does God kill kids?

1

pmabraham t1_iuhaexp wrote

He doesn't.

1

amoliski t1_iuig93u wrote

If I'm sitting by a pool and I see a toddler fall in and drown, I'm not a bad person for not taking the second to reach down and pull them out of the water?

1

Keinichn t1_iuj31me wrote

You realize that the Bible doesn't even consider a fetus to be a person and that there's even passages for a priest-led miscarriage/abortion ritual, right? Please stop using that stupid book as justification for shit when it directly contradicts the things you're trying to justify.

EDIT: Numbers 5:11-31 (Priest led fidelity test. Woman miscarries if she was unfaithful). Exodus 21:22-25 (punishment for causing a miscarriage due to hitting a pregnant woman. Causing miscarriage = fined. Killing the woman = death. Fetus is not treated as a person). Several other verses imply a being is not living until it has taken its first breath, which a fetus in the womb cannot do.

According to your very own holy book, abortion isn't murder because the fetus isn't a person until they're born and breathe. If you think differently, that's fine, but just remember your own religious text doesn't back you up on that view.

1

AmberWaves80 t1_iufa797 wrote

No, all abortions are necessary abortions. It’s healthcare.

5

pmabraham t1_iufcv7f wrote

Killing is not healthcare. Medical science confirms human life starts at conception, and medical science confirms reproduction ends at conception. Medically induced abortion is not healthcare or reproductive care (reproduction is already finished PRIOR to any medically induced abortion).

0

AmberWaves80 t1_iufiocd wrote

Sorry homie, abortion is healthcare, even if you don’t want to believe it.

3

pmabraham t1_iufn6r1 wrote

I work in healthcare, BSN, RN so I know what healthcare is and is not. The purposeful killing of innocent and defenseless babies IS NOT healthcare. And if you go to the PA department of health website, you can find a document showing that ONLY 0.5% (less than 1%) of women get medically induced abortions for health risks.

1

AmberWaves80 t1_iufo6yd wrote

The good news is that I can have an abortion if I need one because it is healthcare. If I don’t want to carry a parasite for 9 months that could literally kill me, and that cannot survive outside of me, I don’t have to. Hopefully I will never have the misfortune of having you as a nurse. Since you obviously know zero about the field you have a degree in.

4

pmabraham t1_iufvl4p wrote

Wow... you are comparing an unborn human baby to a parasite?

1

Twinbrosinc t1_iughvub wrote

Well. Yeah they do kinda fit the definition of one, no?

> an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host

4

pmabraham t1_iuhagli wrote

Are you a parasite? Human beings are not parasites.

0

AmberWaves80 t1_iuhfb8x wrote

Yes, a fetus is a parasite. As someone pointed out in the above comment. Literal parasites who leech the calcium from your body, messing up teeth, and bones. Make you puke your guts out. Give you high BP and/or diabetes. Could kill you on the way out (and far more likely to happen in the US than any other industrialized nation). They can’t live outside of their parent. Yep, parasite.

1

pmabraham t1_iuhjqj2 wrote

The word embryo, zygote and fetus or stages of development of an unborn baby. You do not go from a parasite to a human being when she goes to the magical birth canal unless you're a Democrat.

1

AmberWaves80 t1_iuhjtna wrote

It’s a parasite. Having been pregnant, I can assure you that it’s a parasite.

1

pmabraham t1_iuhk3id wrote

As a register nurse I can assure you that an unborn human baby is not a parasite. You're talking complete nonsense.

1

AmberWaves80 t1_iuhk8o0 wrote

We get it. You’re a nurse who doesn’t believe that your patients have a right to decide what happens to their bodies. Again, I hope you’re on the other side of the state so that there is no change I ever run into your ignorant ass. You saw the definition of a parasite and you’re still arguing. Meanwhile the exact definition of a parasite is what a fetus is.

1

[deleted] t1_iuhkbcc wrote

[removed]

1

AmberWaves80 t1_iuhkoul wrote

Oh honey, it can’t live outside the body, so in fact, those are decisions about the pregnant person’s body.

2

amoliski t1_iugz9dt wrote

>Medical science confirms human life starts at conception

Scientists also said to wear masks and avoid crowds, but the pro-life republican crowd seems to have ignored that.

3

pmabraham t1_iuhaeka wrote

Oh my...... science gives specific reasons and times to wear a mask, but Democrats and liberals are unscientific. An N95 mask or better for KNOWN airborne infections for one time use only; not an entire day, shift, or multiple patients. Surgical and cloth masks DO NOTHING for an airborne virus.

−1

amoliski t1_iuigeed wrote

If I'm about to sneeze directly into your face, would you prefer I do it maskless or with a cloth mask?

1

joefred111 t1_iuej2eh wrote

>extremely rich governor

Not as rich as Oz, if I'd hazard a guess.

>allowing elective abortion clinics

Dumb to focus on that can of worms, it really cheapens your whole argument.

>Target, Wall Mart,

They sell groceries.

>forced ill equipped nursing homes to take Covid-19 positive patients

Source?

>Who is on record stating they will go against court orders regarding mail in ballots...

Which court orders, specifically?

7

PaApprazer t1_iudub0o wrote

Obviously you can’t, not a fact in that list

4