That is great news in reducing toxic chemicals both for the environment and for people who need to handle the chemicals. But since we have been in a grand solar minimum which so far has lasted more than 2 solar cycles with no indication of ending anytime soon (last one lasted nearly a century), climate alarmists need to find something else to obsess over. Maybe they should "follow the science" for a change.

Yes they would call it corrective. In other words they thought being born this way was a******l so they do surgery to make the child physically appear one sex. My twin and I were born at home because our family feared what they would do to an baby, especially an American Indian baby, born hermaphrodite. I was what the medical professionals would have termed "normal" but was under 4 pounds and was taken to the hospital to be put in an incubator. My twin was kept home. When we were in 1st grade, the school nurse discovered my twin had a punishment. She called the police. Police called social services. She was taken from school to a hospital to be surgically sterilized. Penis, testes, ovaries, and uterus were all removed. Then they contacted my mother. My twin died in the hospital from surgical complications.

I have a cousin who was born with both g*****lia, including testes, ovaries and uterus who was never cut on. She gave birth 3 times. One of her children is a hermaphrodite.

Chimerism runs in the family. My cousin is xx-xy. I am xx-xx. We have two complete sets of DNA. Some cells with one and some with the other.

My point is that being born intersex cannot be "fixed" surgically. And that to try to surgically make someone appear to be one g****r is something that should be left to the intersexed person once they are an adult.

When someone is born intersex they don't "feel" like they are in the wrong g****r body. They are not t*********r. They are intersex. Partly male and partly female. Nor is surgery usually necessary. There IS no fix. Surgery will not make them either male or female, but will just make them APPEAR to be either male or female.

My twin was a complete hermaphrodite. My grandmother, two of my great great grandmothers, and my great great great grandmother were all complete hermaphrodite. I have a very good friend who is intersex with the xy c********e but physically developed as a female.

Despite the roadblocks put in place by our congress, with much time wasted where building had to halt while some aspect or other had to be hashed out in court; he got most of it built WITH cooperation from Mexico (which included Mexico paying for a portion of the mutual task.) But add in both the funds NOT spent on detaining, processing, medical care, child care, child schooling, legal expenses, etc.

He did the responsible thing and broke Obamacare into its various laws and tackled them one at a time. He said something to the effect during his campaign that some of Obamacare was good and probably could be kept. He started with the most egregious law and repealed and replaced it, then moved on to others.

There are a few points your example misses. 1. One is those who already paid their loans off don't benefit either. Your analogy would be an education tax break for homeowners where their tax they owe is "forgiven" but which does nothing for those homeowners who were prompt in paying their tax.
2. The homeowners who are taxed have not requested schools be funded out of state taxes only from homeowners, while renters or those with other living arrangements pay nothing. But these student loans were not an involuntary tax but a voluntary t***saction REQUESTED by the student.
3. If schools know that not only are loans guaranteed by our government and backed by taxpayers (involuntarily), but that even without the student reneging the government will step in to cover a large part of the loan; what incentive will they have to keep the cost of an education no more exorbitant than it already is. Before our government began guaranteeing student loans, people could work their way through college with minimum wage part time jobs. My sister did so and others I knew did. Colleges had to consider what students could afford to pay. Once loans were guaranteed and backed by taxpayers, education costs rose precipitously.

So I disagree with your conclusion.

[quote=dwp66][quote=JoyV]Better check your math. One trimester of a human pregnancy is 12 weeks.

You quoted me accurately. I was mistaken about the AZ exception for rape. But I believe no rape victim has been denied an a******n in AZ. Though not due to the letter of the law. I was not mistaken that the current AZ laws are more lenient than Roe v Wade.

But while one of my replies addressed the issue of rape victims, my main point overall was to address the false narrative that the loss of Roe v Wade meant women would no longer have the "rights" imparted by Roe. I responded to the claim that a******ns are banned in most red states by referencing my own state, AZ and how it's a******n laws are more lenient than Roe v Wade.

I note that your info on a******n laws in different states are not links to the actual laws. The lists published by some left wing organizations or news media are rarely accurate. Even when the lists include the actual wording of the laws, often they are explained with a spin. Depending on the issue, the same can be said for many right wing sources. So instead of getting a third party take on the a******n laws of various states, why not look up the actual laws.

How was Roe v Wade decision more restrictive in AZ? I thought I already stated so. But I'll repeat the main points.

1. Under Roe a woman did not have the right to choose to get an a******n. Her doctor had the authority to choose for her.

2. The doctor did not have to show cause to be allowed to provide or prescribe an a******n. [This one is only more restrictive than the current AZ law because it is the doctor who doesn't need to show cause, i.e. "on demand ", rather than the pregnant woman. ]

3. A******ns were only allowed during the first trimester (first 12 weeks), unless the woman's health or life are at risk in the second trimester or her life in the third.

Where Roe and the current AZ law are equal are a******ns could be protected after the first trimester in cases of the woman's health or life. But not in the case of rape.

The practice of a******ns on demand during the entire pregnancy at the choice of the woman was not because Roe v Wade required it. Restrictions were gradually reduced after Roe v Wade until just before the overturn by SCOTUS, some places expanded a******ns be legal through the perinatal period. (Perinatal period is 1 to 4 weeks after birth.) That a******n restrictions reduced over time does not mean that these reductions were in Roe v Wade.[/qu

"I note that your info on a******n laws in different states are not links to the actual laws. The lists published by some left wing organizations or news media are rarely accurate. Even when the lists include the actual wording of the laws, often they are explained with a spin. Depending on the issue, the same can be said for many right wing sources. So instead of getting a third party take on the a******n laws of various states, why not look up the actual laws." Of fifty states? Surely you jest.

Can you provide an example of an actual state law and contrast that with a "l*****t spin" that had been applied? So far all I see is your opinions. Btw, one need not go to lefty websites to find the data I provided, its widely available from lots of sources as you would see with even a quick search.[/quote]

*******************************************
I have waited too long to edit this. I did edit it in my latest reply today, July 2nd.

My corrections regard AZ a******n law and rape victims. I had admitted I was wrong in saying AZ law made no exceptions for rape victims. This is only true if you insist on semantics. There are exceptions for sexual assault. The word "rape" is never used. But would anyone deny that rape is a sexual assault?

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1r/bills/sb1457p.htm

[quote=dwp66][quote=JoyV]Better check your math. One trimester of a human pregnancy is 12 weeks.

You quoted me accurately. But I was not mistaken about the AZ exception for rape. And I believe no rape victim has been denied an a******n in AZ. I was certainly not mistaken that the current AZ laws are more lenient than Roe v Wade.

But while one of my replies addressed the issue of rape victims, my main point overall was to address the false narrative that the loss of Roe v Wade meant women would no longer have the "rights" imparted by Roe. I responded to the claim that a******ns are banned in most red states by referencing my own state, AZ and how it's a******n laws are more lenient than Roe v Wade.

I note that your info on a******n laws in different states are not links to the actual laws. The lists published by some left wing organizations or news media are rarely accurate. Even when the lists include the actual wording of the laws, often they are explained with a spin. Depending on the issue, the same can be said for many right wing sources. So instead of getting a third party take on the a******n laws of various states, why not look up the actual laws.

How was Roe v Wade decision more restrictive in AZ? I thought I already stated so. But I'll repeat the main points.

1. Under Roe a woman did not have the right to choose to get an a******n. Her doctor had the authority to choose for her.

2. The doctor did not have to show cause to be allowed to provide or prescribe an a******n. [This one is only more restrictive than the current AZ law because it is the doctor who doesn't need to show cause, i.e. "on demand ", rather than the pregnant woman. ]

3. A******ns were only allowed during the first trimester (first 12 weeks), unless the woman's health or life are at risk, or she was the victim of sexual assault.

Where Roe and the current AZ law are equal are a******ns could be protected after the first trimester in cases of the woman's health or life.

The practice of a******ns on demand during the entire pregnancy at the choice of the woman was not because Roe v Wade required it. Restrictions were gradually reduced after Roe v Wade until just before the overturn by SCOTUS, some places expanded a******ns be legal through the perinatal period. (Perinatal period is 1 to 4 weeks after birth.) That a******n restrictions reduced over time does not mean that these reductions were in Roe v Wade.[/qu

"I note that your info on a******n laws in different states are not links to the actual laws. The lists published by some left wing organizations or news media are rarely accurate. Even when the lists include the actual wording of the laws, often they are explained with a spin. Depending on the issue, the same can be said for many right wing sources. So instead of getting a third party take on the a******n laws of various states, why not look up the actual laws." Of fifty states? Surely you jest.

Can you provide an example of an actual state law and contrast that with a "l*****t spin" that had been applied? So far all I see is your opinions. Btw, one need not go to lefty websites to find the data I provided, its widely available from lots of sources as you would see with even a quick search.[/quote]

And are the sources unbiased? When you don't specify a particular source in your search, but search by topic or key words, once you click on one that comes up you HAVE gone to that source.

Here is Arizona law on a******n. And it appears I was correct about rape victims after all. One reason given that an a******n can be performed after 15 weeks is if the woman was a victim of sexual assault.


https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1r/bills/sb1457p.htm

Here are 4 l*****t spins. [Actually spin is too mild as it is a lie that Arizona bans all a******ns after 15 weeks.]

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-arizona/get-care/patient-services/a******n-information-for-patients#:~:text=A******n%20is%20legal%20in%20Arizona,genetic%20a******lity%20is%20not%20permitted.
https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2023/01/27/arizona-shouldnt-settle-for-bad-a******n-laws/
https://www.acluaz.org/en/issues/a******n-arizona
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-a******n-arizona

The last link includes two bits of info which are classic cases of spin. It states that the number of a******ns have gone down in AZ since the law was enacted and provides figures. But it doesn't reveal that those figures are only of those a******ns taking place within a clinic. The number of at home medical a******ns has increased tremendously. If at home medical a******ns were included, the number of a******ns would be higher.

Another subtle piece of spin is it also makes no mention of exceptions for victims of sexual assault. No. The law does not say anything about exceptions for rape. But rape most certainly IS a sexual assault. So by using the word rape instead of sexual assault when saying there are no exceptions for rape, they or other sources can say they weren't actually lying.

The term "s*x c****e" is not used in the medical field and has generally not been used in layman's terms since the late 70s. I already provided a link to one of the well known children's hospitals in the country.

Since when is Biden a Republican?

I said most. A dozen out of 50 is not most.

Better check your math. One trimester of a human pregnancy is 12 weeks.

You quoted me accurately. I was mistaken about the AZ exception for rape. But I believe no rape victim has been denied an a******n in AZ. Though not due to the letter of the law. I was not mistaken that the current AZ laws are more lenient than Roe v Wade.

But while one of my replies addressed the issue of rape victims, my main point overall was to address the false narrative that the loss of Roe v Wade meant women would no longer have the "rights" imparted by Roe. I responded to the claim that a******ns are banned in most red states by referencing my own state, AZ and how it's a******n laws are more lenient than Roe v Wade.

I note that your info on a******n laws in different states are not links to the actual laws. The lists published by some left wing organizations or news media are rarely accurate. Even when the lists include the actual wording of the laws, often they are explained with a spin. Depending on the issue, the same can be said for many right wing sources. So instead of getting a third party take on the a******n laws of various states, why not look up the actual laws.

How was Roe v Wade decision more restrictive in AZ? I thought I already stated so. But I'll repeat the main points.

1. Under Roe a woman did not have the right to choose to get an a******n. Her doctor had the authority to choose for her.

2. The doctor did not have to show cause to be allowed to provide or prescribe an a******n. [This one is only more restrictive than the current AZ law because it is the doctor who doesn't need to show cause, i.e. "on demand ", rather than the pregnant woman. ]

3. A******ns were only allowed during the first trimester (first 12 weeks), unless the woman's health or life are at risk in the second trimester or her life in the third.

Where Roe and the current AZ law are equal are a******ns could be protected after the first trimester in cases of the woman's health or life. But not in the case of rape.

The practice of a******ns on demand during the entire pregnancy at the choice of the woman was not because Roe v Wade required it. Restrictions were gradually reduced after Roe v Wade until just before the overturn by SCOTUS, some places expanded a******ns be legal through the perinatal period. (Perinatal period is 1 to 4 weeks after birth.) That a******n restrictions reduced over time does not mean that these reductions were in Roe v Wade.

Why would the woman need to justify getting pregnant? Except in the case of rape, the reason doesn't matter except to those involved. No laws prevent a woman from having a baby because the reason she got pregnant wasn't documented birth control failure. No adoptions are denied because of the reason the woman got pregnant. And no community demands a woman justify how she wound up getting pregnant.

So are you saying not aborting does not save a life? Are you saying the unborn are not alive?

Birth control occasionally fails. It certainly doesn't fail 50% of the time. Most of those "unintended " pregnancies simply mean when the participants engaged in unprotected sex they did not intentionally do so in order to have a baby.

I am overweight. I never "intended" to be fat. But I can't say I am not responsible for my eating and exercise habits. If someone drives a car faster than they can control and have a wreck, they can say they didn't intend to wreck but it still would be the result of their actions. If you don't INTEND to have a baby, work to prevent a pregnancy from occurring or correct your poor choices by letting the child be adopted by people who INTEND to become parents. There is a long waiting list to get to adopt a child.

And no. Adopting foster care children is rarely an option. Even parents who are incarcerated for life must voluntarily sign to allow their child to be adopted. Both parents must give their signed ok. And parents who don't want to be bothered caring for a child will also rarely agree to letting the child be adopted. And those who have had their children taken because they are unfit still must voluntarily sign them away for adoption. The Politically correct goal is to see the child reunited with the biological parents no matter how long it takes, leaving many kids to grow up in foster care rather than be adopted.

Now you are being intentionally obtuse. If a pregnancy happens outside of marriage despite birth control, there is no longer a stigma attached to ruin the lives of either the mother or both parents. People are no longer ostracized for having a child when unmarried. Also, giving the child up for adoption is no longer seen as a woman being unnatural. These particular rationalizations for having an a******n in the 60s or earlier no longer exist.

Now is not the 1960s. Women are not ostracized for having a child out of wedlock. In fact there are many women who choose to have a child and not a husband. Pregnant women and high school teens are not kicked out of school for being pregnant. Your cousin's experiences are no longer the case.