Red Mosquito

dimejinky99 wrote:If looks could kill

96583UP wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:If looks could kill

meanwhile United Health just got a dept of justice investigation announced

bc it looks like the company had a practice of fraudulently added services to its invoices that qualified for Federal Gov't payments

to the tune of $8.7B USD in the year 2021 alone

but because they do it with computers and suits it makes it civilized

hold for the forthcoming 'settlement' ? will anyone go to jail for stealing $8.7B from the US Govt (i.e. people's tax dollars) ?

what a system

96583UP wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:If looks could kill

meanwhile United Health just got a dept of justice investigation announced

bc it looks like the company had a practice of fraudulently added services to its invoices that qualified for Federal Gov't payments

to the tune of $8.7B USD in the year 2021 alone

but because they do it with computers and suits it makes it civilized

hold for the forthcoming 'settlement' ? will anyone go to jail for stealing $8.7B from the US Govt (i.e. people's tax dollars) ?

what a system

Higgs wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Higgs wrote:That would (will soon enough no doubt) piss me off SOOO much.

That just makes me want to buy and fix up my dream car that has very little electronics.

I think I told the story before about my son "sinking" his 2016 Ford Ranger 4x4. It was stuck on the beach and had water up to the bottom of the doors for 45 minutes. Thank fuck they wrote it off.

He's now got a lifted 2013 Hilux with far less electronics and technical shit. He's much happier now (if less comfy on long drives).

There is such a huge use case for less electronic wizardry in cars. Sadly that's not the way of the world these days.

(Having said that I drive a 2024 Ford Everest with everything under the sun on it and quietly kinda love it. I'm not launching boats on remote WA beaches however).

spike wrote:

Higgs wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Higgs wrote:That would (will soon enough no doubt) piss me off SOOO much.

That just makes me want to buy and fix up my dream car that has very little electronics.

I think I told the story before about my son "sinking" his 2016 Ford Ranger 4x4. It was stuck on the beach and had water up to the bottom of the doors for 45 minutes. Thank fuck they wrote it off.

He's now got a lifted 2013 Hilux with far less electronics and technical shit. He's much happier now (if less comfy on long drives).

There is such a huge use case for less electronic wizardry in cars. Sadly that's not the way of the world these days.

(Having said that I drive a 2024 Ford Everest with everything under the sun on it and quietly kinda love it. I'm not launching boats on remote WA beaches however).

Did he blindly follow the onboard GPS into the ocean or something?

GOP-led Missouri House advances abortion ban ballot question.

The Republican-controlled Missouri House on Tuesday advanced a ballot question to repeal the new constitutional right to abortion that voters approved last year.

Following hours of debate Tuesday, as legislators prepared to vote on the plan, abortion-rights protesters stood up and began chanting in the upper House gallery. Business was paused while the gallery was cleared.

The plan still won initial approval on a 94-50 vote — but without support from House Speaker Jonathan Patterson, R-Lee’s Summit. Asked about his vote, Patterson said “talk Thursday.” Before the Nov. 5 election, Patterson said the Legislature “should respect the will of the voters.”

The bill still needs another vote to advance to the Senate for consideration.

The proposed constitutional amendment — if approved by voters — would allow abortions in medical emergencies and when there is a fetal anomaly. It would also allow the procedure in cases of rape and incest up to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

It doesn’t explicitly ban all other abortions, but the repeal of Amendment 3 would clear the way for additional restrictions in Missouri.

During debate Tuesday, Republicans said voters should get a do-over on abortion.

“Let the people speak again. Let them lead — let us lead them there with honesty and grace,” said Rep. Wendy Hausman, R-St. Charles.

But Democrats said voters knew what they were doing when they approved Amendment 3 last year.

Rep. Doug Clemens, D-St. Ann, said the people made a “clear decision” last election cycle with Amendment 3 and dared Republicans to “put it on the ballot again.”

“You’re gonna lose. It’s gonna be an embarrassment,” Clemens said. “You have no idea of the experiences of the people that you represent.”

Amendment 3 came in response to a 2019 law approved by Missouri legislators that banned nearly all abortions — even in cases of rape and incest — starting in June 2022.

Nearly 52% of voters supported Amendment 3 in the November election. It protects abortion rights up to the point of fetal viability and allows abortions after that point “to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.”

Opponents have criticized that wording as too open-ended.

Medical emergencies under the Republican legislation in which abortions would be allowed include ectopic pregnancies and in miscarriage care.

The definition also allows abortions for conditions that would require immediate pregnancy termination to avert death or for which a delay “will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”

The proposed ballot question would also allow the General Assembly to approve abortion regulations, such as facility and licensing requirements critics say amount to targeted regulation of abortion providers (or TRAP laws) designed to restrict the procedure.

The measure also asks voters to constitutionally ban treatments for transgender minors — including puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries — that are already banned by state law.

The measure bans abortions based on a prenatal diagnosis indicating disability, except when there is a fetal anomaly.

Fetal anomaly is defined as “a structural or functional abnormality in the unborn child’s gestational development that would make life outside the womb impossible.”

Rep. Raychel Proudie, D-Ferguson, previously said the language wouldn’t allow for an exception in the case of anencephaly, a condition severely affecting skull and brain development where the child is expected to survive for only a short time after birth.

The ballot question bans fetal organ harvesting and bars public funds for abortions except “in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest, as otherwise authorized by law.”

The ballot summary voters would read before casting their votes wouldn’t mention the repeal of Amendment 3.

Instead, it would ask if voters wanted to “guarantee access to care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages; Ensure women’s safety during abortions; Ensure parental consent for minors; Allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest; Require physicians to provide medically accurate information; and Protect children from gender transition?”

blueviper wrote:Taken from the St Louis Post-Dispatch

GOP-led Missouri House advances abortion ban ballot question.

The Republican-controlled Missouri House on Tuesday advanced a ballot question to repeal the new constitutional right to abortion that voters approved last year.

Following hours of debate Tuesday, as legislators prepared to vote on the plan, abortion-rights protesters stood up and began chanting in the upper House gallery. Business was paused while the gallery was cleared.

The plan still won initial approval on a 94-50 vote — but without support from House Speaker Jonathan Patterson, R-Lee’s Summit. Asked about his vote, Patterson said “talk Thursday.” Before the Nov. 5 election, Patterson said the Legislature “should respect the will of the voters.”

The bill still needs another vote to advance to the Senate for consideration.

The proposed constitutional amendment — if approved by voters — would allow abortions in medical emergencies and when there is a fetal anomaly. It would also allow the procedure in cases of rape and incest up to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

It doesn’t explicitly ban all other abortions, but the repeal of Amendment 3 would clear the way for additional restrictions in Missouri.

During debate Tuesday, Republicans said voters should get a do-over on abortion.

“Let the people speak again. Let them lead — let us lead them there with honesty and grace,” said Rep. Wendy Hausman, R-St. Charles.

But Democrats said voters knew what they were doing when they approved Amendment 3 last year.

Rep. Doug Clemens, D-St. Ann, said the people made a “clear decision” last election cycle with Amendment 3 and dared Republicans to “put it on the ballot again.”

“You’re gonna lose. It’s gonna be an embarrassment,” Clemens said. “You have no idea of the experiences of the people that you represent.”

Amendment 3 came in response to a 2019 law approved by Missouri legislators that banned nearly all abortions — even in cases of rape and incest — starting in June 2022.

Nearly 52% of voters supported Amendment 3 in the November election. It protects abortion rights up to the point of fetal viability and allows abortions after that point “to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.”

Opponents have criticized that wording as too open-ended.

Medical emergencies under the Republican legislation in which abortions would be allowed include ectopic pregnancies and in miscarriage care.

The definition also allows abortions for conditions that would require immediate pregnancy termination to avert death or for which a delay “will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”

The proposed ballot question would also allow the General Assembly to approve abortion regulations, such as facility and licensing requirements critics say amount to targeted regulation of abortion providers (or TRAP laws) designed to restrict the procedure.

The measure also asks voters to constitutionally ban treatments for transgender minors — including puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries — that are already banned by state law.

The measure bans abortions based on a prenatal diagnosis indicating disability, except when there is a fetal anomaly.

Fetal anomaly is defined as “a structural or functional abnormality in the unborn child’s gestational development that would make life outside the womb impossible.”

Rep. Raychel Proudie, D-Ferguson, previously said the language wouldn’t allow for an exception in the case of anencephaly, a condition severely affecting skull and brain development where the child is expected to survive for only a short time after birth.

The ballot question bans fetal organ harvesting and bars public funds for abortions except “in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest, as otherwise authorized by law.”

The ballot summary voters would read before casting their votes wouldn’t mention the repeal of Amendment 3.

Instead, it would ask if voters wanted to “guarantee access to care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages; Ensure women’s safety during abortions; Ensure parental consent for minors; Allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest; Require physicians to provide medically accurate information; and Protect children from gender transition?”

I swear I live in one of the most backwards states in the union. So now if legislatures don't like how the people of the state voted, we should do it over until it appeases the right people (Republicans)?

No one is forcing Republicans to get abortions. And I'm sure there are a lot of people that are pro-choice but wouldn't get an abortion. But the options are there in case an abortion is needed, without jumping through legal hoops or worrying about harassment or criminal repercussions.

BurtReynolds wrote: Also Spain and Portugal are back in the stone age after a big power outage.