#Dakota { Family }

[stevetoday]

Pro-Choice - Abortion Measures on The Ballot

Florida Amendment 4, the Right to Abortion Initiative A Yes vote with 60% will Establish a constitutional right to abortion until viability, with exceptions for later pregnancies. Arizona Proposition 139, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024) A "yes" vote supports amending the state constitution to provide for the fundamental right to abortion, among other provisions.

Colorado Amendment 79, Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative A  "yes" vote supports creating a right to abortion in the state constitution and allowing the use of public funds for abortion. Maryland Question 1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment A "yes" vote supports adding a new article to the Maryland Constitution's Declaration of Rights establishing a right to reproductive freedom, defined to include "the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy."

Missouri Amendment 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative A "yes" vote supports adding a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, defined to include abortion and “all matters relating to reproductive health care,” to the Missouri Constitution, among other provisions. Montana CI-128, Right to Abortion Initiative

provide a state constitutional "right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion," and

allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when "medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

Nebraska Initiative 434, Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment A "no" vote opposes amending the state constitution to prohibit abortions after the first trimester unless necessitated by a medical emergency or the pregnancy is a result of sexual assault or incest.

Nebraska Initiative 439, Right to Abortion Initiative A "yes" vote supports amending the state constitution to establish a right to abortion until fetal viability. Nevada Question 6, Right to Abortion Initiative A "yes" vote supports providing for a state constitutional right to an abortion, providing for the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except where medically indicated to "protect the life or health of the pregnant patient." New York Proposal 1, Equal Protection of Law Amendment A "yes" vote supports adding language to the New York Bill of Rights to provide that people cannot be denied rights based on their "ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability" or "sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy."

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, Right to Abortion Initiative A "yes" vote supports providing for a state constitutional right to abortion in South Dakota, using a trimester framework for regulation:

During the first trimester, the state would be prohibited from regulating a woman's decision to have an abortion;

During the second trimester, the state may regulate abortion, but "only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman;" and

During the third trimester, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion, except "when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman."

[arendalphaeagle]

A handful more things from the Milo Mikey Murphy's Law pitch bible:

[blond43d]

canucks | playoffs game 6, advancing to second round | may 3, 2024

[geekynerfherder]

Exclusive new prints from Spoke Art available during the San Diego Comic Con (booth #4900), at the San Diego Convention Center, San Diego, CA, July 24-28 2024.

Art by Matt Taylor, Tracie Ching, Doaly, Steve Thomas, Andrew Kolb, Izzy Burton, Dakota Randall, Isabella Addison, Rose Couch and Aleksander Walijewski.

Online sales begin Thursday August 1 at 10am PT through the Spoke Art website.

[wheredidalltheusersgo]

Family Cosplay time

[batponiesrule28]

Who wants to see a Milo Murphy au where Dakota and cav are good at their jobs and they get assigned to protecting Milo instead of pistachios

[acinematicworld]

The voice actors of Coraline (2009)

[lildevilsadvocate]

preds @ canucks | game 1

[gilliontidestriderchampionoftheu]

do you guys ever think about what wouldve happened if vyncent HAD killed mark. i do. a lot.

check out my commissions :D

[cowplantcalamity]

Dakota Rain Cleary | Young Adult

[pseudokap]

we’re going to jail | Prime defenders animatic/tion youtube link Wahoo

(copied and pasted from my other post) was supposed to be a joke but I put too much effort into this. I committed to the bit too hard. But it was worth it 10/10, probably fits PD S1 more

[freakinflipflop]

Even when the Prime Defenders don't trust themselves, they know they can and WILL trust the others. They prove it over and over again.

William didn't trust his morality or his ability to do good. He only saw "evil" death powers, and didn't believe that he could do anything right, with either his powers or his own internal compass. But he ALWAYS trusted Vyncent and Dakota. Even when the three of them had differing morals, even when Dakota and Vyncent went through periods of time when they had to relearn their abilities. He had total faith that the two of them would be able to do the right thing.

Vyncent didn't trust his sense of self or purpose in a world so different from his own. He had to constantly weigh what he had known in his home up against nebulous, shifting ideas of legality and morality that he didn't ever have a full grasp of; and on top of that he had to decide who HE was, separate of his home and his connection with the Greats. However, he always leaned on his connection with William and Dakota for purpose. He helped them with their problems, stood with them on what they believed in, and formed his identity as he came into himself on Prime around his friendship with the two of them.

Dakota doesn't trust himself to not lose anymore. He couldn't save Ashe, he couldn't save Tide, he couldn't save the girl who fell. But in spite of that, he trusts that William and Vyncent won't put him through that again. That they'll be a team and share the weight. That the two of them can hold their own, and he doesn't have to always protect them. And on top of that, he trusts that they'll continue to stay with him and share with him, so that he isn't ever powerless to save them if the worst happens.

Like yeah their trust is tested. Oh so many times. But despite it they still trust each other more than ANYTHING. They care about each other and would give the world for each other. God I love prime defenders

[spencerwatchestoons]

when the night has been too lonely, and the road has been too long 🎶🎵

and you think that love is only, for the lucky and strong 🎵🎶

a new challenge to draw your faves as the scene in Family Guy when they sing The Rose!

in order of characters: emma (total drama island 2023), jedediah (night at the museum), david (craig of the creek), rarity (mlp: fim), top cat (jellystone), dakota (milo murphy’s law), pinky (pinky and the brain), dracula (monster high g3)

original photo below break:

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ian Millhiser at Vox:

Oklahoma v. Department of Health and Human Services is the sort of case that keeps health policy wonks up late at night. On the surface, it involves a relatively low-stakes fight over abortion. The Biden administration requires recipients of federal Title X grants — a federal program that funds family-planning services — to present patients with “neutral, factual information” about all of their family-planning options, including abortion. Grant recipients can comply with this requirement by giving patients a national call-in number that can inform those patients about abortion providers. Oklahoma had long received Title X grants to fund health programs in the state. After receiving a $4.5 million grant in 2023, however, the state decided it would no longer comply with the requirement to give patients the call-in number. Accordingly, the administration terminated Oklahoma’s grant. Now, however, Oklahoma wants the Supreme Court to allow it to receive Title X funds without complying with the call-in number rule. Its suit has landed on the Court’s shadow docket, a mix of emergency motions and other expedited matters that the justices sometimes decide without full briefing or oral argument.

Oklahoma raises two arguments to justify its preferred outcome, one of which could potentially sabotage much of Medicare and Medicaid. Briefly, the state claims that federal agencies may not set the rules that states must comply with when they receive federal grant money, even if Congress has explicitly authorized an agency to do so. Taken seriously, Oklahoma’s proposed limit on federal agencies’ power would profoundly transform how many of the biggest and most consequential federal programs operate. As the Justice Department points out in its Oklahoma brief, “Medicare’s ‘Conditions of Participation’ for hospitals alone span some 48 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations.” All of those rules, plus countless other federal regulations for Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs, could cease to function overnight if the justices accept Oklahoma’s more radical argument. (Oklahoma’s second argument, which contends that the call-in rule is contrary to a different federal law, is less radical and more plausible than its first.)

This fight over whether Title X grant recipients must provide some abortion-related information to patients who seek it will be familiar to anyone who closely follows abortion politics. In 1988, the Reagan administration forbade Title X grant recipients from providing any counseling on abortion, and the Supreme Court upheld the Reagan administration’s authority to do so in Rust v. Sullivan (1991). Since then, the policy has sometimes changed depending on which party controls the White House. The Reagan-era policy was eliminated during the Clinton administration, and then revived in 2019 by the Trump administration. Biden’s administration shifted the policy again during his first year in office.

[...] Oklahoma, however, argues that Congress cannot delegate this kind of rulemaking power to a federal agency. If it wants to impose a condition on a federal grant, Congress must write the exact terms of that condition into the statute itself. The implications of this argument are breathtaking, as there are scads of agency-drafted rules governing federal grant programs. The Medicare rules mentioned in the Justice Department’s brief, for example, cover everything from hospital licensure to grievances filed by patients to the corporate governance of hospitals receiving Medicare funds. The rules governing Medicaid can be even more complicated. These are more vulnerable to a legal challenge under Oklahoma’s legal theory because Medicaid is administered almost entirely by states receiving federal grants. Oklahoma, in other words, is asking the Court to fundamentally alter how nearly every single aspect of hospital and health care administration and provision works in the United States — and that’s not even accounting for all the federal grant programs that are not health care-related.

[...]

If the justices are determined to rule in Oklahoma’s favor, there’s a way to do it without breaking Medicare and Medicaid

Oklahoma does raise a second legal argument in its suit that would allow it to receive a Title X grant, but that would not require the Court to throw much of the US health system into chaos. The Biden administration’s requirement that Title X providers must give patients seeking abortion information a call-in number arguably conflicts with a federal law called the Weldon Amendment.

The Weldon Amendment prohibits Title X funds from being distributed to government agencies that subject “any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” The three appellate judges who previously heard the Oklahoma case split on whether the Weldon Amendment prohibits the Biden administration’s rule. Two judges concluded, among other things, that providing a patient with a phone number that will allow them to learn about abortion is not the same thing as referring a patient for an abortion, and thus that the Biden rule was permissible. One judge (who is, notably, a Biden appointee) disagreed. In any event, Oklahoma’s Weldon Amendment argument gives this Supreme Court a way to rule against the Biden administration’s pro-abortion access policy without doing the kind of violence to Medicare and Medicaid contemplated by Oklahoma’s other argument. If the justices are determined to rule in Oklahoma’s favor, anyone who cares about maintaining a stable health system in the United States should root for the Court to take this less radical option.

The Oklahoma v. HHS case could be very big regarding Title X impact, along with Medicare and/or Medicaid.

[forever70s]

Ojibwe activist Dennis Banks and Oglala Lakota youths on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota (1972)

[fake-married-my-dead-fiance]

This little girl is in everything!

Dramas I've watched with Oh Eun-Seo: Family by Choice, Perfect Family, Marry My Husband, My Lovely Liar, and Hospital Playlist 2.