• Nom Nom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    How the hell do republican women even exist not to mention all the republican women in government. Does none of these affect them or are they always pregnant?

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Some are white and wealthy enough that the rules don’t apply. Some are in abusive relationships and feel forced to vote a certain way. Some are in traditional marriages where the husband controls everything, especially what’s on TV and see nothing but Fox news. Some are older and in social circles that completely avoids politics, so they just vote how husband says to vote. Some are incredibly religious and only vote the way the pastor says, because they truly think God wants that.

  • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ah yes, the party of ‘keep the government out of my business!’ is all for sticking their noses into other people’s business. Fucking hypocrites.

  • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Republicans: We need a federal database to track pregnant women!

    Republicans: Putting gun owners into a federal database is a violation of personal freedoms!

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Small government, not interfering with people’s freedoms, just as they always preach.

    • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      they can consent to share their contact information “which the (Department of Health and Human Services) Secretary may use to conduct outreach via phone or email to follow up with users on additional resources.”

      The bill doesn’t explain how this collected data would be handled or who would have access to it. Critics said that vagueness poses concerns for pregnant women’s privacy.

      That is right, but also wrong.

      A. Just because giving data is consensual, does not mean it can’t/won’t be used against you. “Anything you say or said will be used against you in a court of law”

      B. There are no protections for this data. Who gets access to it?

      This is a trap being masqueraded as helpful for women that are pregnant, when this is the same trap as “Life clinics” faking being abortion clinics.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I agree with you.

        B. There are no protections for this data. Who gets access to it?

        The only protection the requires is that there is a “privacy policy”. Here’s the actual text of the bill:

        on page 3

        “‘(4) A mechanism for users to take an assess-8 ment through the website and provide consent to use9 the user’s contact information, which the Secretary10 may use to conduct outreach via phone or email to11 follow up with users on additional resources that12 would be helpful for the users to review.”

        and page 13

        “have a privacy policy and procedures13 in place to ensure that—14 (i) the name, address, telephone num-15 ber, or any other information that might16 identify any woman seeking services sup-17 ported through the grant is not made pub-18 lic or shared with any other entity without19 the written consent of the woman; and20 (ii) the grantee adheres to require-21 ments comparable to those applicable22 under the HIPAA privacy regulation (as23 defined in section 1180(b)(3) of the Social24 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d–9(b)(3)))”

        source - PDF