#Reproductive Freedom for All Act

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A bipartisan group of senators reintroduced a bill to codify abortion protections on Thursday following President Biden’s call on Congress to pass legislation ensuring abortion access in his State of the Union address.

Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) reintroduced the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, which would block states from enacting laws that would impose an “undue burden” on previability abortions and protect access to contraception.

The Senators previously introduced the bill in August, with Kaine calling it a “bipartisan compromise” to ensure reproductive freedom.

Throughout 2022, Democratic attempts to advance legislation that would enshrine access to abortions into federal law failed to advance in the evenly split Senate. Republicans in support of abortion access objected to what they felt were over-encompassing bills, while moderate Democrats Sinema, who recently changed her party affiliation, and Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) opposed abolishing the filibuster in order to pass the proposed laws.

During his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Biden urged Congress to “restore the right that was taken away in [the overturning of] Roe v. Wade.” He also made it clear that he would veto any federal abortion bans that reached his desk.

The House passed two bills last year aimed at protecting abortion access, the Women’s Health Protection Act and the Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act. No Republicans voted for the Women’s Health Protection Act, but a handful of GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats to vote for the latter bill, which protected the ability to travel out-of-state to obtain abortion services.

While Democrats have more votes in the Senate this time around, the bill is unlikely to pass the House, where Republicans control a 222-212 majority.

[jessicalprice]

I think the thing that most Christian atheists who are rebelling against authoritarian Christian backgrounds don't get is why Jews remain Jewish.

Like, I get it, you engaged in your practices because you were told that God would punish you if you didn't, because you're told you're supposed to fear God.

(Incidentally, we don't even use the same language about this. The term that gets translated in most English bibles as "fear" is, like many classical Hebrew words, a lot more multivalent than the English term, and has more of a connotation of "awe." (See, for example, the Gilgamesh dream sequence: "Why am I trembling? No god passed this way." A god is something in whose wake one trembles.) It's what one feels when one is faced with something bigger than oneself, something overwhelming. For some people that may be fear of being harmed. For others it may be wonder or even ecstasy, standing outside oneself.)

But in 2023, Jews have the option (and, indeed, still the cultural pressure) to completely abandon Judaism. Very easily. We can, in fact, do it quite passively. If we're not actively trying to engage with it, it will very much drift away from us.

And it's not fear of divine punishment keeping most of us engaged.

The thing is, if you proved to me tomorrow that God doesn't exist, I'm not sure anything about my life or my practice would change. (I'm already agnostic, so *shrug*. I don't believe in a God-person. Sometimes I believe in a unity to reality, a life and a direction to it. Sometimes I don't. I just don't have the arrogance to think I understand definitively the way the universe does or doesn't work.) I still would celebrate Shabbat, I still wouldn't eat pork, I still would have a mezuzah on my doorway.

I do all that stuff because I'm Jewish, not because I think God will get mad if I don't. I do all that stuff because it's part of a cultural system that I see as wise and life-giving and therapeutic and worth maintaining.

And the thing is, the cultural system that Christian antitheists want us to assimilate into, under the guise of "getting rid of religion", is very much a white Protestant culture. It's not culturally neutral. It has practices, and it has a particular worldview, and it has cultural norms that are just as irrational as any other culture's.

It's also very telling that Christian antitheists purport to be harmed by Jews continuing to be Jewish. Why? We don't impose our norms on anyone else, and we overwhelmingly vote (and organize, and engage in activism) against the imposition of Christian "religious" norms, such as the curtailing of reproductive freedom, blue laws, etc.

So you're only "harmed" by our continued existence in the same way Christians purport to be harmed by it: by claiming that the very existence of a group that doesn't share your worldview and practices is somehow an act of oppression against you.

Which is, you know, white supremacist logic.

You're still upholding the logic of Jesus's genocidal, colonial Great Commission even though you supposedly don't believe in the god that ordered it anymore.

That's gotta be one of the saddest things I encounter among my fellow humans.

You took down all the crosses in the church of your mind and chucked them out the window, but you still refuse to step foot outside the church building, contenting yourself with claiming it's not a church, and firing out the windows at the synagogue and mosque down the road, the same way you used to.

[miredball]

HOTD’s rhaenyra and alicent can act and talk like (ex) lovers, can have the tension and chemistry of two romantically involved people, can follow romantic themes and have an established romantic dynamic despite being two women in a pseudo-medieval setting because they can’t truly be lovers in the eyes of the general audience.

the text (as in the show), showrunners, and actors can insist all they want on the purposeful nature of the romantic codes that inform rhaenyra and alicent’s relationship (knight and lady, star-crossed, disrupted connection, love triangles, paralleled lives, etc.) but the pseudo-medieval setting comes with certain expectations for mainstream Western audiences to buy and the depiction of an explicit, sensitive, tragic female homosexuality has not yet married with this genre.

the show has a fascinating freedom with their interpretation of this adapted relationship. it’s queer because it can’t be queer, not really! rhaenyra and alicent will never kiss or confess love or even touch lest they betray the perceived rules of this pseudo-medieval period and the narrative that literally revolves around succession and birth and reproduction. It’s easy to brush off the intensity of their bond as oh they are literally just like that.

a thorough exploration of queerness in HOTD is seemingly hampered by the setting and the established source material, not to mention the conservative fans. but at the same time the show is afforded the freedom to play around with these queer limitations because:

1. the source material is literally a history book

2. the GA on autopilot will blink and miss the subtle-not-so-subtle implications

3. the narrative is filled to the brim with men to distract from the very explicit lesbian divorce at the center.

anyways. rhaenicent romantic dynamic is trail-blazingly real and purposeful in a show so popular and expensive but only because general audiences can cajole themselves into thinking that this romance is in fact not real nor purposeful. I mean, there’s a war!

[catofoldstones]

I once read someone call Alysanne 'fake feminist' and that is so accurate. She was a horrible, horrible mother to her daughters. Of course Jaehaerys was even worse but at least he did not pretend to care about women. If they were the standard for ideal Targaryen couple (lets not forget Jaehaerys reproductively abuses Alysanne in later years) and rulers, then the bar is lower than hell. I read about a random targaryen on a random day and am reminded why thankfully this family is near extinction and is never coming back to power.

I genuinely don’t know why people hail Jaehaerys and Alysanne as this objectively most romantic story ever when it reads like a horror story. Especially for their daughters, and even Alysanne. Every act that Jaehaerys and Alysanne do has an undercurrent of Targ Exceptionalism running through it. In fact, getting married to each other was was not so much an extremely romantic, star crossed lovers situation but more of a blood purity situation.

The way Alysanne matched up her daughters with old lords who already had heirs and had dead wives reeks of - our daughters’ kids will marry back into the family, keeping our blood pure so that no one can challenge the throne. And that is exactly what happened. The disconnect between being outwardly feminist- hiring a female bodyguard and then discontinuing the right of first night and then inwardly pushing your daughters to their inadvertent deaths by not granting them any freedom is very on brand with their philosophy and not at all surprising.

Alysanne clearly holds the “Targaryens are closer to Gods than men” ideal in the way she acts, lives, interacts with everything around her. Women who are not Targaryens can have these “freedoms” of choice, of marrying who they want (with some caveats ofc) outside the family, at a later age, but not her daughters. They’re different. They’re purer. They’re Targaryens. And they have to uphold Targaryen standards.

Do not even get me started on Jaehaerys. Though I do have to slightly disagree with you here, anon. Jaehaerys did pretend to care about women, once, where it really mattered. With Alysanne. He had to make his sister fall in love with him to keep their bloodline within the family. He had already usurped the crown of another sister, he could not let this one go. The mask slipped off of course, with time and age. When he still wanted more kids with Alysanne to have as many “pure” Targaryens as possible and then when he fought with her about Saera and Daella. I would argue he never cared for her beyond what she could give him. He’s a sociopath.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

We must make our focus keeping the barbarians outside the gate, not figuring out how to lessen the damage once they are on the inside. That was my immediate thought Sunday when I read NY Times in-depth article, “The Resistance to a New Trump Administration Has Already Started.” The piece featured a wide network of Democratic officials, progressive activists and more who are engaged in “extraordinary steps to prepare for a potential second Trump presidency.”  Examples include Democratic Governor Washington State Jay Inslee’s efforts to make the state a safe haven for women seeking reproductive freedom to an organization hiring a new auditor in case a second term Trump directs the Internal Revenue Service to target them. On one hand, I truly applaud these officials and organizations for grasping that Donald Trump back in the White House poses a unique threat to our freedoms and democratic Republic. Far too many don’t understand this threat.

But on the other hand, the only certain way to prevent Trump from using the government to wage a campaign of retribution, ending civil service protections so that only Trump loyalists will be in key positions in the federal government--as well as ushering in a far right wing agenda being peddled by his allies--is to defeat him this November. Again, we must make our focus keeping the barbarians outside the gate, not figuring out how to lessen the damage once they are on the inside. Trump is telling all who will listen his dark goals for a second term—from mass deportations to building in essence concentration camps for migrants to expanding executive power. There’s also Trump’s deeply concerning vow to “liberate” America from those not loyal to him. We first heard this during his 2023 speech at the conservative gathering CPAC where he promised his supporters to be their “retribution.” He then alarmingly  vowed that if elected to target Democrats, “the fake news media,” Republicans in name only, the globalists and others who oppose him, bellowing, “we will liberate America from these villains and scoundrels once and for all.”

He has repeated this pledge to “liberate” our nation from those who oppose him, including at a rally last month in Wisconsin.  When have you ever heard an American political figure speak about “liberating” America from those who politically oppose him or her?! You can’t find it because we never had an aspiring fascist—who has pledged to be a dictator on “day one”— lead one of the two main political parties. To be blunt, the forms of resistance utilized to stymie some of Trump’s agenda in the first term are unlikely to work against this bitter, angry convicted felon who is hellbent on retribution and purging America from those who won’t bend a knee to him.

[...]

From a legislative point of view, If Trump were able to win and his MAGA GOP were able to also take control of the House and Senate, we can expect him deliver for them on a laundry list of right-wing policy dreams from national abortion and birth control bans to further weakening civil rights protections for LGBTQ and Black Americans and worse. This won’t be like Trump’s first term when some Republicans stood up to him to block his radical agenda—with the most famous example being the late Senator John McCain preventing Trump from repealing the Affordable Care Act with his vote.  The Republicans who have dared to stand up to Trump are almost all out of Congress or now capitulated to his undemocratic goals. Of the ten House Republicans who voted in  January 2021 to impeach Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection, only two remain in the House. Senator Mitt Romney--a vocal critics of Trump--will be leaving office  this January. Even GOP Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell who slammed Trump on the Senate floor after the Jan. 6 attack with the words, “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” last week met with Trump and dubbed  it “entirely positive.”

[...] If Trump wins, there are few things that can rein him in. That is why diverting efforts at this point to second term resistance strategies is dangerous given the threat Trump poses. Rather, the top and only priority must be utilizing all resources to defeat him. Nothing else matters.

Dean Obeidallah dropping truth nuggets in his latest Dean's Report post on why defeating fascist felon Donald Trump is imperative to save our nation.

See Also:

CNN: Opinion: Don’t focus on bracing for a Trump win

[tdicksupreme]

i'm v happy to discuss my partial & conditional male privilege as a trans guy. my frustration is that people are never asking this question in good faith.

by good faith i mean genuine curiosity and expansion of our shared understandings as people: these discussions never seem to be about how my experience can help illuminate the oppression of being a woman or what that consists of, where the line is, what our lived experiences are like. i have never seen people ask/assert "trans men have male privilege" in ways that weren't v obviously trying to give people permission to not think about us. trans men have male privilege i'd argue can be partially true, depending on contexts, but it should be pretty blatantly bad-faith that such a complex topic is treated as a settled issue.

we have male privilege, it's settled, that's it, and you never have to think about effeminate trans men, flamboyant gay trans men, the complexities of how we move through the world, what it means (in my case, for example) to be a guy who's generally seen as a guy, but has not had top or bottom surgery, has long hair, & what that means for how i get treated in different contexts.

what are we talking about? the privilege to not be seen/treated as a woman on sight? reproductive freedoms? respect in the workplace? economic security? etc.?- so many trans guys, even guys who have passed for quite some time, never experience so many of these things, and instead of having genuine curiosity about our unique experiences you want to slot us all categorically into the cis-het-white-man box so you don't need to think of us as people who can ever have power leveraged against us

people seem to have two settings, either "trans men are women and don't know what it's like to be a guy" or "trans men are cis men and never experience their own unique challenges," even though i think it's pretty obvious that we have a mixed/complicated gender experience simply by virtue of being trans

and every tguy i've ever seen say "i have male privilege all of the time" never brings up all the things he had to do to get & retain patriarchal power. having- idk, been a guy, it's so fucking disingenous to pretend like being a man doesn't involve a performance of ten thousand different choices & behaviors to make sure other guys continue seeing you as a dude. it's not just "having facial hair" or w/e, and if that's what you think then you are literally by definition a transmisogynist lmao. it's the high-and-tight haircut, the gym shirt, the workouts you did to build those arms, the ways you learned to socialize with straight-acting men so they feel comfortable, the things you don't express & feminine mannerisms you stopped using because it would get you clocked. IMO, participating in sexism is a system men participate in so they don't become targets of it.

like, insisting trans guys universally attain male privilege isn't an innocent statement, it's one that in my experience gives dudes a skewed idea of their own safety. what do you think happens when i have a scruff, deep voice, and people realize my boobs are not cis guy moobs? why do so many people think that i'm seen unilaterally as a cis straight man, rather than a mostly-man sort-of-woman you're allowed to condescend to & also physically fight?

[theothergal]

I've seen a post on Twitter that, in my opinion, summarizes what lots of Bridgerton's fan think about Eloise.

The tweet said, basically "I hope that the friendship with Kate will help Eloise realize that she can want romance, be a wife and a mother, be part of the Ton and still be 100% herself"

And It made me think...

What if "being 100% herself" includes not wanting any of these things?

Eloise has made quite clear that she doesn't want to be a wife and that she doesn't like the Ton's events, how can she be "100% herself" while conforming to the societal standards she resents?

I know, I know she will, eventually, because of the canon, but I don't like this attitude toward any female character Who Is not 100% gender conforming.

And it's not just Eloise, every time a female character Is not 100% feminine and Happy of being feminine Is automatically called a NLOG.

Yes, there's a conversation to be had about those female characters who put down other girls, but the focus should be their behavior, not their gender non conformity.

It's grating seeing all these post wishing for female characters to become more gender conforming as growth.

"Another pick me! I hope X will grow out of her NLOG phase and start appreciating romance, embroidery, pink and dresses"

"Wouldn't be cool if that masc female characters started hanging out with girly girls and became more girly herself? She can be a masc with a splash of pink and makeup😉"

"Female characters who resist arranged marriage are so stupid! Just think about the advantages It brings! A smart girl would be happy to wed a stranger for money and power. Freedom and reproductive autonomy? What are those?"

"I'm tired of of these girlboss female characters fighting and punching like men, we need more female characters,who use their feminine power to succeed. Action female characters are basically men with boobs"

Do you hear yourselves?

Put this in your heads. Some women and girls don't like pink, dresses, embroidery, makeup...and it's perfectly FINE.

I wish there were as many masc characters as you think there are. Instead we get slightly-tomboyish-but-still-feminine-enough female characters who are ALWAYS forced into femininity and eventually "learn" to enjoy.

You make me want to write a story where the FMC Is 100% gnc and stays like this until the end, and when somebody tries to femminize her she tells them of.

Like "I don't want to wear dresses, or pink or heels. I don't want to marry or have children. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever".

Sorry, it became a rant, and I'm sure I Lost some nuance, but seriously, stop treating gnc female characters as bitter nlogs who should learn to become pure and beautiful girly girls.

I'm nowhere near the most masculine girls ever, and I still get sometimes shat on for not liking makeup, for not shaving and for acting awkward sometimes, and I know I'm not always pleasant to be around, but it's not always my fault.

It's not fun.

[rawmeknockout]

Can I request a breeding kink for Vos and a human s/o? I'm thirsty for that man 👁️👁️

Vos doesn’t like Tarn’s new pet. It blubbers and whines in its high-pitched mammalian sounds, crying like a dying mechanimal during every klik of the orbital cycle. It requires far too much attention, or else it’s likely to be crushed in one of its pathetic escape attempts. Too many times Vos has been tasked with crawling through the vents to pluck up the skittering thing. Every time, it bawls its little organic optics out and kicks at him. Were it not for Tarn’s fondness of the thing, Vos would have squished the little insect by now.

There’s truly no use having it around, and yet Tarn has affection for it all the same.

Occasionally, Vos, with his audials set to maximum, will hear its distant whining and it’s… Softer. Drawn out and mournful. Everyone knows why Tarn keeps it alive, but Vos has no taste for it. Laying with the thing, even if he were desperate enough, would be like laying with the Pet. Primal and repulsive; an act of a mech who is truly without dignity. He tries not to juxtapose this judgement with the idea of his leader.

And yet, the creature is soft in his servos. It trembles but Vos keeps a sure grip on it. Easily. He’s unused to being so large next to another. He’s known of humans for a while, but has never had the misfortune of meeting one before Tarn’s pet.

It… You squish and yield beneath his claws. The next time Vos has to pull you from the vents, he looks at his digits for a long time. A creature like you shouldn’t even survive. No outer shell to protect you, inner structure like the flimsiest steel, mesh that is not mesh. It bends and flexes and gives way readily when punctured. Vos can… imagine what Tarn sees in you. If he truly were to give you a grace you don’t deserve.

You are small, yes, but your body gives way. It bends and adapts readily. Part of what makes carrying so unviable is the rigidity of Cybertronian frames. A species meant to, built to, colonize and conquer. Frames made to withstand and last. Frames that don’t produce life as easily, because reproduction is not the first method by which they survive. But for organics, mating like petrorabbits is the only way to thrive. The idea was disgusting to him at first, novel in a way that looking at a scraplet’s innards might be, but the idea sits in his processor for too long. Festers like an open wound. Vos has always been seen as more primitive, treated as such by his peers. It’s not something that bothers him anymore, but it has certainly shaped him.

He can’t rationalize why he does it. Perhaps he is truly sick. His job makes that obvious to any other, but Vos knows he has limits. Assumed he did, at least. You are snug around his spike, warm and wet. Your insides writhe in a way that is unnatural to him, unlike the grind of cable and gear. You do not coil like metal. It’s not unpleasant in the slightest. Part of him is still repulsed by the slip of your body against his, the way your organic flesh presses oil and sweat to his armor, but Vos revels in the disgusting. He would gladly coat himself in another mech’s viscera, and pushing his spike into you feels like the same sort of satisfaction.

You would look endearing filled to the brim with sparklings, your body molded around what he had given you. His coding hard at work in a body that is designed to bend and morph. Just as your body yields, you make room to fit him. You bend your desires out of the way to curl into Vos’ arms, to wrap your small human legs around his hips and pull him close. Your animal sounds are light and lovely, no longer a grating keen for mercy or freedom. Tarn could never pull such sounds from your fleshling vocalizer, too large and too rough no matter how he tries. His frame made to bully through others with little regard. And yet, compared to you, Vos is the same. It pulls a raspy chuckle from his intake, a moan like rusty metal grinding.

Vos will make sure it takes. You are eager for his touch, your body more than able to carry, and he has all the time in the world to see it will.

[bbygirl-aemond]

Jaehaerys was such a shit dad he fucked up all of his children thank god for Alysanne

anon i am so sorry to ruin this for you, but alysanne really wasn't a good mom or grandmom to specifically the women within her family. she didn't have as much power as viserys, but she managed to use her power to control her female descendants' marriages to straight up ruin most of their lives 😬

she allowed 16yo daella to be married off to a 36yo rodrik arryn (she did give daella two other options, but they were both fully grown men). teenage daella soon fell pregnant and wrote to her mother saying she was scared for her life. she died in childbirth.

she betrothed 15yo viserra to the already "old" and "very stout" lord manderly, who'd already gone through four wives, and who viserra made clear she did not want to marry. she did this even though viserra was young because she disliked that viserra was currying favor with men due to her beauty. this directly pushed viserra to slip her guards and try to enjoy some freedom before being married to a fat old grandpa, which led to the accident that killed her.

maegelle was kind of alright but she was raised to be a silent sister from birth, she never had a choice in it. alysanne decided her entire life's course for her as a baby and she was never allowed to consider any other path.

gael honestly had a very clingy relationship with alysanne because by the time she was born alysanne had already lost several children. i think alysanne using gael as an emotional crutch for losing children directly contributed to gael later killing herself at 19yo after losing a baby.

alyssa was allowed to marry baelon when she was just 15yo. some people say it was nice of alysanne to let alyssa marry who she wanted, but given alysanne's track record i think alyssa's wants didn't factor into this decision as much as baelon's did. and regardless, allowing alyssa to marry and become pregnant so young put her at risk for the childbirth complications that later killed her.

saera i could write an entire essay about. she was constantly ignored by her parents since she was the ninthborn and a girl, and was punished when this neglect made her act out for attention. jaehaerys was willing to let saera marry one of the three men she favored, but alysanne refused. when saera was found to have kissed and possibly slept with these men, alysanne said she should be punished, and stood by while saera was forced to watch from afar as her own father killed one of her male companions. she then forced saera to join the faith, where she was abused for over a year (her head was shaved, she was physically beaten, etc.). i don't blame saera for running away and remaining no contact with alysanne for the rest of alysanne's life.

alysanne even did her grandchildren dirty. she allowed 11yo aemma to be married to viserys, and later allowed viserys to consummate the marriage when aemma was just 13yo even though maesters warned them it would irreparably damage aemma's reproductive system and body. this caused aemma lifelong health issues that later killed her. like this is literally what happened with daella, only much worse, and they absolutely knew better but didn't care enough about poor aemma's safety.

listen, i appreciate the things alysanne accomplished as jaehaerys's advisor. she was definitely the biggest force of good for women that we ever got under the targaryens (save for daenerys). but it's not a coincidence that alysanne's relationships with all of her daughters ended in tragedy when her relationships with her sons did not.

she is complicit in the unhappiness and death that faced her descendants like daella, alyssa, and aemma for allowing them to become pregnant so young. she was slut-shamey towards both viserra and saera for daring to have agency over their sexuality, even more so than jaehaerys which is really saying something. she had a talent for alienating her daughters and making choices for their lives without regard for their happiness. contrast this to her relationships with her sons, whom she allowed the agency she never granted her daughters: she allowed both aemon and baelon to choose their own wives, rather than following precedent that would dictate aemon marry alyssa.

basically, alysanne was definitely a feminist when it came to policy, but her internalized misogyny jumped out HARD when it came to her family's affairs. and her female descendants paid the price for it, with their happiness, with their lives, or both.

[misfitwashere]

September 9, 2024 

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

SEP 10

Last night, Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign launched a new section of its website detailing her policy positions. Titling her plans “A New Way Forward,” Harris vows to build the American middle class through an “opportunity economy.” Her vision for the future, she says, “protects our fundamental freedoms, strengthens our democracy, and ensures every person has the opportunity to not just get by, but to get ahead.” 

Harris’s economic plan builds on that of the Biden-Harris administration. This makes sense, since their focus on investing in the middle class has created the strongest economy in the world. Harris is emphasizing the need to bring down household costs of food, medicine, housing, healthcare, and childcare, all issues important to Americans.  

The website provides concrete economic actions she plans to take with a willing Congress. They include expanding the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, investing in more housing, and supporting the PRO Act, which protects the rights of workers to unionize, while continuing the crackdown on business consolidation that kills competition and rolling back the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.

The biggest economic shift from the current administration is pegging a new capital gains tax for those earning more than a million dollars a year at 28%, significantly lower than the 39.6% President Joe Biden proposed in his 2025 budget. The plans also call for the first-ever national ban on corporate price gouging on food and groceries (37 states already have such laws). 

Aside from strictly economic plans, the policy pages say Harris backs passing the bipartisan immigration bill that Republicans killed on Trump’s orders, protecting reproductive healthcare and restoring Roe v. Wade, and protecting the right to vote and ending partisan gerrymandering through the John Lewis Voting Rights and the Freedom to Vote Acts.

Republicans have charged that Harris has not offered specifics for her policies, but much of what is now clearly laid out is already in the public record. By the standards of American history, it is a strikingly moderate agenda that reflects the belief that the best way for the government to protect opportunity and nurture the economy is to make sure that the system is fair and that ordinary people have access to opportunity.

The “New Way Forward” in Harris’s plan seems to be less a new set of policies than a rejection of the politics of the past several decades. She and her running mate Minnesota governor Tim Walz appear to be attempting to reshape the political landscape to bring Americans of all parties together to stand against Trump’s MAGA Republicans. The campaign has actively reached out to Republicans, several of whom spoke at the Democratic National Convention. On Saturday, Harris said she was “honored” to have the endorsement of former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) and former vice president Dick Cheney, both staunch Republicans. “People are exhausted about the division and the attempt to divide us as Americans,” she said. “We love our country and we have more in common than what separates us.” 

Trump’s website offers slogans rather than policies, so Harris’s website compares her policies to the comparable sections of Project 2025, the playbook for a second Trump term laid out by a number of right-wing institutions led by the Heritage Foundation. Trump and his campaign have tried to distance themselves from Project 2025, but at his rallies, he has offered the policies in it—like firing nonpartisan civil servants and replacing them with loyalists, and abolishing the Department of Education—as his top priorities. 

While Harris focused on policy, as critics have demanded, MAGA Republicans today spread slurs about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, claiming they are eating other people’s pets and local wildlife. Right-wing media figure Benny Johnson, who was one of the six commenters whose paychecks at now-disbanded Tenet Media were paid by Russia, was one of those pushing the false stories. So was X owner Elon Musk. 

The story was debunked almost immediately by the Springfield police, but Republican politicians ran with it. The X account for Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee ran it; so did Texas senator Ted Cruz, who shared an image with two kittens saying: “PLEASE VOTE FOR TRUMP SO IMMIGRANTS DON’T EAT US.” And the Republican vice presidential nominee, Ohio senator J.D. Vance, posted: “Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn't be in this country.” (The Haitians in Springfield are in the U.S. legally.)

Perhaps most significantly, Republican Senate candidate Bernie Moreno, who is challenging Democratic Ohio senator Sherrod Brown, pushed the story. That Senate seat is crucial to the Republican attempt to take control of the Senate, and Moreno has just launched a $25 million ad campaign against Brown, accusing him of giving undocumented immigrants taxpayer-funded benefits. Today’s disinformation was well timed for that ad campaign. 

The Justice Department today announced  charges against two leaders of the white supremacist Terrorgram Collective, an international terrorist group that operates on the platform Telegram. Dallas Humber of California and Matthew Allison of Idaho have been charged with “soliciting hate crimes, soliciting the murder of federal officials, and conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.” They “solicited murders and hate crimes based on the race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity of others,” U.S. Attorney Phillip Talbert said. They had a hit list of federal, state, and local officials, as well as corporate leaders, and they encouraged attacks on government infrastructure, including energy facilities. Their plan was to create a race war. 

“Hate crimes fueled by bigotry and white supremacy, and amplified by the weaponization of digital messaging platforms, are on the rise and have no place in our society,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said.

Congress is back in session today and must fund the government before October 1 or face a government shutdown. Although Congress negotiated spending levels for 2024 and 2025 back in June 2023, the House has been unable to pass appropriations bills because MAGA extremists either refuse to accept those levels or insist on inserting culture war poison pills into the bills. 

Now, Trump has demanded that a continuing resolution to fund the government must include a measure requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Since it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in elections for president or members of Congress and there is no evidence it is anything but vanishingly rare, the measure actually seems designed to suppress voting. House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) went along and put the measure in the bill. He also designed for the measure to last until next March, making the budget so late a new president could write it, but also blowing through a January 1 deadline set in the June 2023 bill to require automatic cuts to spending.

House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) wrote to his colleagues: “House Democrats have made it clear that we will find bipartisan common ground on any issue with our Republican colleagues wherever possible, while pushing back against MAGA extremism.” Jeffries called the Republican bill “unserious and unacceptable.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told House and Senate leaders that the cuts required by law if Congress pushes the budget into March would drastically affect the military. “The repercussions of Congress failing to pass regular appropriations legislation for the first half of [fiscal] 2025 would be devastating to our readiness and ability to execute the National Defense Strategy,” Austin wrote.

Meanwhile, Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) is back to his old trick of blocking a military promotion, this time of Lieutenant General Ronald Clark, one of Austin’s top aides. Tuberville says he placed the hold because he has concerns that Clark did not alert Biden when Austin had surgery. Biden has nominated Clark to become the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Pacific, a position currently held by General Charles A. Flynn, younger brother of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, Trump’s first National Security Advisor who resigned after news broke that he had hidden conversations with Russian operatives. 

Today, ten retired senior military officials endorsed Harris, saying she “is the best—and only—presidential candidate in this race who is fit to serve as our commander-in-chief…. Frankly stated, Donald Trump is a danger to our national security and our democracy. His own former National Security Advisors, Defense Secretaries, and Chiefs of Staff have said so.”

—

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed a law on Monday that adds crucial protections for LGBTQ+ couples using fertility treatments to build a family.

The Michigan Family Protection Act includes a series of provisions to protect families of all kinds. Most notably for the LGBTQ+ community, it changes “outdated state law to treat LGBTQ+ families equally and eliminate the need for them to go through a costly and invasive process to get documentation confirming their parental status,” as a press release from the governor’s office explains, adding that “Even if they move to a state that does not respect these basic rights, these bills help ensure they cannot be denied their relationship to their child.”

The law also repeals a law that made Michigan the only state in the country to criminalize surrogacy contracts; increases protections for surrogates, parents, and children; ensures equal legal treatment of children born through surrogacy and assisted reproduction; and streamlines the process for families to establish legal connections to their children.

“The Michigan Family Protection Act takes commonsense, long-overdue action to repeal Michigan’s ban on surrogacy, protect families formed by IVF, and ensure LGBTQ+ parents are treated equally,” Gov. Whitmer said in a statement. “Your family’s decisions should be up to you, and my legislative partners and I will keep fighting like hell to protect reproductive freedom in Michigan and make our state the best place to start, raise, and grow your family.”

Stephanie Jones, founder of the Michigan Fertility Alliance, called the legislation “an incredible victory for all Michigan families formed through assisted reproduction, including IVF and surrogacy, and for LGBTQ+ families.”

The press release also acknowledged the attacks on reproductive rights taking place across the country, most notably the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade and the 2024 Alabama Supreme Court’s declaration that embryos created through IVF have the same legal rights as children.

“As other states seek to restrict IVF, ban abortion, and make it harder to start a family, Michigan is supporting women and protecting reproductive freedoms for everyone,” the release stated.

One fierce advocate, Tammy Myers, has been fighting for the decriminalization of surrogacy in the state for the past four years. She told 7 Action News, “The tipping point, I think, is seeing that rights are being taken across the nation and we all need to fight for reproductive freedom.”

Polly Crozier, director of family advocacy at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), added in a statement, “Michigan has shown us what strengthening families should look like in 2024: making it more possible for people to fulfill their dreams of building a family and more accessible for all families, including LGBTQ+ families, to obtain the safety and stability that comes with legal parentage.”

“Amid efforts to restrict Americans’ reproductive freedom and roll back protections for LGBTQ+ people and their families, the Michigan Family Protection Act is an inspiring example for other states where gaps in parentage laws leave families vulnerable.”

[darkmaga-retard]

1. Abortion

Walz is unabashedly pro-abortion, in both rhetoric and policy.

For example, two bills that Walz signed into law last year make Minnesota one of the most pro-abortion states in America.

The first bill, the Protect Reproductive Options Act, codified into Minnesota law a "fundamental right ... to obtain an abortion." The bill imposes no limits on abortion. Minnesota, in fact, is one of just seven states (and Washington, D.C.) that imposes no legal gestational limit on abortions. The second bill, Minnesota Senate Bill 2995, essentially eliminated "nearly all the protective and modestly pro-life features of existing Minnesota law," according to National Review.

"Abortion is health care," Walz said earlier this year.

If you combine Walz's radical pro-abortion views and record with Harris', then you generate "the most pro-abortion presidential ticket America has ever seen," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America.

2. LGBTQ agenda

Not only does Walz support the LGBTQ agenda, but he has turned Minnesota into a "trans refuge."

Last year, Walz signed a bill — the so-called "Trans Refuge" Act — and an executive order protecting so-called "gender-affirming" procedures for children while prohibiting legal action against people who travel to Minnesota for so-called "gender-affirming" care.

Walz has also banned "conversion therapy."

There is, of course, also the law that requires period products to "be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12." This means that boys' bathrooms in Minnesota schools do make available pads and tampons.

Walz, moreover, is described by his critics as "anti-parent."

Walz's record on issues related to the LGBTQ agenda has earned him high praise from GLAAD, which released a statement on Tuesday celebrating his "proven record" on these issues.

3. COVID pandemic and religious freedom

Walz, like many other Democratic governors, instituted harsh restrictions on residents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But Walz took heat from Christians during the pandemic for enacting policies they argued were religiously discriminatory. Case in point: In May 2020, Walz signed an executive order allowing retail shops to re-open at 50% capacity — while still prohibiting in-person religious gatherings to 10 people.

After pushback from Catholic and Lutherans — who promised to buck Walz's restrictions — Walz allowed churches to re-open at 25% capacity.

"Governor Walz, a former teacher, gets an F in religious liberties," said Erick Kaardal, special counsel at the Thomas More Society.

Levi Secord, pastor of Christ Bible Church in Minnesota, added of Walz's record on religious freedom:

Walz and Democrats in Minnesota sought to coerce religious institutions to hire against their sincerely held beliefs. Democrats enacted a change to employment law that would have forced religious institutions, including churches, to hire against their beliefs about sexuality and gender. Thanks to a groundswell of opposition from local churches, this was eventually reversed. Sadly, under a new proposed amendment, Walz’s party is trying again to undermine religious liberty.

Earlier this year, however, Walz did sign a law that clarified religious protections under the state's Human Rights Act.

"Governor Tim Walz is a radical progressive," said Dr. Andrew Walker, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

[lemonhemlock]

"Rhaenyra didn't have a choice; she was married to a homosexual man and they had to produce heirs somehow!"

Let's see what Rhaenyra could have done differently to secure her claim, ranging from the most ridiculous to the most advantageous.

Rhaenyra / Aegon

Otto puts this proposal forward to Viserys in order to combine the two rival claims.

I don't blame Viserys for refusing; the age difference is too big and I doubt 17(?)-year-old Rhaenyra would appreciate being betrothed to a toddler. It would also place her towards the twilight of her reproductive years by the time Aegon could be reasonably expected to consummate the marriage.

It's a good idea on paper, but just too damn weird, I'll grant you.

Rhaenyra / Jason Lannister

Rhaenyra acts so offended that Jason Lannister has the audacity to propose to her, but why wouldn't he?

He is conceited and aloof, but he's the lord of a very powerful, very rich house that has been sidelined by the Targaryens ever since the Conquest. They're just itching to receive some attention. He has the means to build her a Dragonpit at Casterly Rock if she so wishes, he has the resources to back up her claim financially and militarily and he would definitely press for her to become Queen.

Marrying Jason would also rob the Hightowers of a powerful ally and leave them more isolated.

Betrothal tour

If it's marrying for love Rhaenyra wanted, she had a reasonable chance for that, too!

There's no reason she couldn't have married Harwin, if she wanted. They were both at court at the time. She could have easily made a list of eligible young men starting with the Red Keep and the Crownlands and assessed each possibility. It's not terribly romantic, but imagine having this level of freedom.

Viserys was super permissive with her and told her to pick whomever she wanted (I presume he'd have to be of noble birth, at least).

He even organizes a royal progress for her with this very purpose in mind. This was a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity that no other woman or man in Westeros has ever had. To journey through Westeros, be feted by the lords, go to feasts and balls organized in your name... ! No wonder Alicent considers Rhaenyra ungrateful.

All she does is huff and complain and insult her suitors. She is seen exasperating Boremund Baratheon with her antics.

Viserys only forces her to marry Laenor Velaryon after the brothel debacle with Daemon. It's suggested that he doesn't believe her to be a maid any longer by the fact that he sends her moon tea. In his mind, he has to marry her as soon as possible to prevent her from making any more rash decisions.

The match is not a bad one, politically-speaking. The Velaryons are a another rich, powerful house that could provide Rhaenyra with a fleet, money and even dragons to secure her claim.

Rhaenyra & Laenor

Jace and Aemond are about the same age. Realistically speaking, how hard did Rhaenyra and Laenor actually try to conceive?

I realise that they both suffer from the trappings of patriarchy here, but they seemed to get along fine and could have had a reasonable partnership. With the risk of sounding crass, Margaery proved more inventive than them.

In any case, Rhaenyra and Laenor didn't need to have children. Viserys already provided enough heirs. Rhaenyra could have just named Aegon as her heir and be done with it, instead of creating a future succession crisis by having bastard children.

Corlys wouldn't have been pleased by this and could have threatened not to support her, since he seems really pressed to become grandfather to a king, but by compromising on Green heirs to succeed her, the question of a succession war becomes less likely. And what's Corlys going to do, not support his son, the royal consort?

Laenor doesn't need heirs either. Laena exists and has her own children. They can get Driftmark after him. If Corlys is really hung up on male primogeniture, he can take it up with his wife, daughter and son-in-law.

Absolutely do not marry Daemon and make people think you killed your husband.

Of course, it would also help tremendously if Rhaenyra didn't alienate the green faction by completely ignoring her siblings and acting hostile towards them whenever the occasion permitted. If she maintains a good relationship with Alicent, she is less likely to collaborate with Otto.

Of course, Viserys messed up his own succession when he took a second wife from a prominent family and fathered younger sons that could challenge his eldest daughter's claim. But there are also actions that Rhaenyra could have taken on her own to secure her own position and even prevent future wars. She wasn't a powerless, hapless victim in all of this.

[transmutationisms]

@amarocit yes i would love to hear your analysis of the french context here! so i'm borrowing a lot from dorothy roberts, who talks about this in chapter 7 of 'killing the black body'—roberts makes a distinction between the american liberal's demands for "reproductive liberty" (a guarantee of freedom from specific forms of government intervention) and what she calls "reproductive equality", which would be a more expansive guarantee of reproductive choice that takes into account the background factors of social inequality restricting eg black women and poor women from accessing the full range of options in reproductive care / decision-making.

part of what's at stake here, obviously, is the simple fact that the right to abortion in roe v wade operated on the background assumption that health care is essentially income-restricted. but there is also a whole web of legislation of government action that perpetuates the inferior status of black women, and that prevents them from making all manner of choices about having / raising children. so, a negatively conceived right to abortion is simply insufficient to eliminate the subordination of black women. it's a right that was basically designed around the desires and needs of (wealthy) white women for whom "reproductive choice" had become very highly focussed on a right to abortion rather than, say, a right to the kind of overall economic stability that would allow them to actually access that procedure, or indeed a right to avoid the kinds of state coercive measures that sought to control black women's reproduction in other ways (eg, welfare policies that seek to discourage black women from having children, or punish them for doing so; forced sterilisation; various other means of trying to discourage them from having children). wealthy white women's desire to access abortion has basically come up against natalist pressures for them to reproduce; this is simply not the case for all demographics in the us. as long as demands for abortion rights assume (tacitly or explicitly) that everyone seeking an abortion is fighting against the pressure to HAVE children, it's impossible to adequately address the needs of those who are actually being coerced by various state policy in the opposite direction.

people have also made a lot of the fact that the roe decision hinged on a 'right to privacy' rather than an affirmation of bodily autonomy—obviously i don't think that was good, but i am honestly not convinced that even the best-written supreme court decision would have made much difference in this respect lol. as we've seen in the past few years regarding the court, and the past few decades regarding abortion specifically, what the court says is not really set in stone any more than any legislation is. i think abortion opponents would have been pretty determined to chip away at any legal conception of a right to abortion. it seems to me that the underlying issue here is, again, that the right to abortion was basically grafted onto larger structures of inequality and the subordination of black women; i don't think 'liberty' (if we want to use that word) can really exist so long as the underlying oppressive structures are still there. obviously the supreme court is not designed to be capable of challenging those structures because it exists within them and upholds them as an arm of the state.

in any case i guess my main point here is: a right to abortion was always going to be shaky and inequitable in the us so long as it was configured as a very limited freedom from specific forms of government intervention, rather than being placed in context with the larger social forces that act to constrain people's ability to make free choices about their bodies / reproduction. abortion needs to be available freely and on-demand, along with things like contraception, but also along with actual freedom from government coercion NOT to reproduce, which is something that the state directs primarily at black and poor women. abortion framed as a negative right has no redress for this type of issue because again, the us abortion rights movement has been so driven by wealthy white women who were in a position where their main concern was getting access to the procedure, rather than fearing being forced to have it (or being forcibly sterilised and so forth).

when we flip it around and start thinking about what's required to actually achieve equality and reproductive freedom, it's clear that just guaranteeing legal access to abortion is wildly insufficient for those subjugated by legal and systemic antiblackness, living in poverty, &c. and it's pretty depressing that the mainstream us abortion rights movement has never been able to grapple with eg, the very real and ongoing legacy of eugenics in welfare policy, white women's feminism, and yes the efforts to provide access to contraception and abortion. as long as these things are excluded from advocacy of abortion rights, and abortion is conceived as a freedom-from (a specific manner of state intervention), we're not actually able to discuss the broader factors that constrain people's ability to make free choices about their bodies and reproduction: poverty, racism, policies in response to these factors that may take either pro- or anti-natalist stances, depending on the state's goals and the specific population it's trying to control or manage.

anyway yeah: would be very interested in hearing what you have to say about the french context!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

No, Donald Trump is not “flip-flopping” on abortion as some corporate media headlines are claiming. But the silver lining to this debate is that it elevates the issue of reproductive freedom to the forefront in the closing months of the campaign—reminding people Trump was “honored” to “kill” Roe v. Wade and that his abortion bans are literally killing women. What sparked the headlines about Trump’s so-called “flip-flop” on abortion was when Trump first stated last week that he opposed the GOP enacted six week abortion ban in Florida. Trump told Fox News this six-week ban was a “mistake,” adding, "I think six weeks, you need more time.” However, after the pro-forced birth activists and Christian nationalists expressed outrage, Trump reversed course, saying he would vote no on the proposed Florida ballot measure that would repeal the state's six-week abortion ban.

Trump did not “evolve” on the issue of reproductive freedom. In reality, he has no core beliefs other than racism and sexism. The convicted felon simply sees the same polls and election results we have when it comes to abortion. Trump gets that a recent Gallup poll found only 12% of Americans support the GOP’s total abortion bans—while 85% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or certain circumstances.  Add to that, a recent CNN poll found nearly two thirds of Americans oppose the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Trump simply wanted to appear more reasonable on abortion given new polls show Americans overwhelmingly trust VP Harris to handle the issue of reproductive freedom--which has contributed to a record gender gap.  This explains Trump’s latest proposal regarding in vitro fertilization (IVF) that he claims will force insurance companies to pay for the costs of in vitro fertilization (IVF.) I’m sure we will see this “amazing” IVF plan the same time we see Trump’s “great” healthcare plan that he repeatedly promised since 2015 he would be unveiling in “two weeks.” Never happened.

Trump’s new IVF is not even original--he stole it from the Democrats. In June, Senate Democrats proposed legislation known as the Right to IVF Act that would have both enshrined into federal law a right for individuals to receive IVF treatment and would’ve mandated coverage for fertility treatments under health insurance plans. In other words, what Trump says he now wants to do. However, that legislation was blocked by all but two Senate Republicans included Trump’s own running mate, JD Vance.

What Trump and the GOP don’t get—or care to grasp—is that stripping women of a 50-year constitutional right to reproductive freedom is not a political issue, it’s personal. In fact, nothing is more personal than Republican laws that force women against their will to carry a fetus to term. And that is exactly what Republicans have done in 14 states they control with their total abortion bans that in essence mean on day one of pregnancy, a women’s uterus becomes property of the GOP.  (An additional eight GOP controlled states have also implemented abortion bans still far more restrictive than under Roe v. Wade.) These abortion bans—as studies have now detailed—are literally killing women. One study found that “women in states with abortion bans are nearly three times more likely to die during pregnancy, childbirth or soon after giving birth.” A July study found that “the highest rates of maternal mortality can be found in the Mississippi Delta, which includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.” These states—as well as Texas and others--all have extreme abortion bans that have resulted in preventing women from receiving an abortion to address a women’s health needs. Rather, a woman must be on the doorstep of death before doctors are permitted by law to perform an abortion to save her life.

Abortion bans are harming and killing women, point blank. These have the imprimatur of Trump-appointed justices and GOP legislators across the nation, along with Trump himself.

[balkanradfem]

I was watching a video on purity culture and how it causes trauma to women who end up seeing sexual experiences as tainting and sinful later on; I didn't experience this so I don't have a lot to say on it, but I've thought about why it was implemented as a part of religious experience for women specifically.

Purity culture doesn't touch m*n, they are aware it's okay to get sex anywhere they possibly could and they feel victorious about it, like it's their natural thing to do. Women, however, don't get to give into their instincts and have to follow a set of strict rules, otherwise they're 'non-pure' and 'damaged goods' and whatnot.

I originally believed this was to enable m*n to be the first one to shape and control women's sexuality; if she had no experiences before and has no idea what she likes, she can't judge if he's doing well, she can't tell him what she likes, she has no criticism because she has no reference, he gets the freedom to teach her how sex should be done, and it's going to be the way he likes it; she's just there to fulfill his fantasy, and her experience barely matters. I believe this is also why a lot of m*n are attracted to children; children have no way of criticizing or being demanding or saying no, they're completely at mercy of whoever is violating them, they have zero agency, zero ability to consent to anything. Being in complete control, and even more, being a 'teacher' in those moments seems to be what m*n are aspiring for, because then the entire sexuality is under their authority. It ceases to be a mutual act and turns into one-sided power play.

Now after reading all about the biological imperative of males to impregnate women and to reject or even murder children who are not of their own blood, I'm starting to think that maybe it was the way to ensure that a woman who is entering a marriage is only possibly carrying his children. Because m*n have no way to tell, when a woman carries a child, if it's his or someone else's; so he implements strict rules and regulations that forbid the woman to ever touch anyone else sexually, so he could be sure it's all his blood. So by convincing women they could get 'tainted' or 'become sinners' by sexually interacting with anyone but a husband, they get to control her reproductive capabilities completely, use them only for themselves.

This interferes with women being the natural administrators of life and choosing who gets to continue their line. Since not all women have the chance to choose their husbands, and a lot of them are choosing based on information that is twisted and manipulated in favour of the m*n, they not only cannot exercise the right to pick and choose anytime they want, but someone else gets to do it entirely, the second they're married. Without patriarchy, women chould choose and drop a m*n at a moment's notice, the second he is no longer agreeable as a person to them, they would be able to ditch him forever, and pick someone else, or no-one at all. Patriarchy gives women only one single choice and then hardly any way to go back on it, and they are forced to make this choice on faulty information, without experience, references, and sometimes it's not even their choice at all, but the only thing that will allow them to survive. There's a reason why women are pushed to marry young, with as little experience as possible, and for m*n it doesn't matter.

Our nature is being hacked to the point where we're only living under an illusion of a choice, and under someone else's complete control over what is supposed to be our administrative right, but even that one choice is never something we can easily change our mind about, or quit when we realize it's damaging or dangerous for us. We should get to decide and control all of it. Partners, sexuality, choice of who gets to have their blood in a new generation. No restrictions should be there for women. Nature has given us none.