Just a reminder that Cindy Hyde-Smith is a white supremacist who has ties to the KKK and is publicly in favor of suppressing minority votes.
Yeah the title already said that. "GOP Sen."
Nice
"It would legalize the creation of human-animal chimeras," Hyde-Smith said of the bill on the Senate floor on February 28.
Uh, someone did explain to her that Duckworth is just a name, right?
e; I have no idea how to make a joke out of this one, but TIL her husband is related to someone who murdered a civil rights activists trying to register people to vote in the 50s, which appears to be one of a dozen connections they have to KKK-types
Classic GQP obstructionist debate tactic: “I’m blocking ____ because it could legalize [ insert insane fear-mongering bullshit here ] that I saw in a movie/YouTube video that doesn’t actually exist!”
She is pandering to her base that eats up blatant lies like that. Her base wants to believe her because they want to believe any evil conspiracy theory they can to justify hating anyone different than them or that don't agree to worship their demagogue.
Does she not know that FMA was only an anime?
It was actually a manga first.
I always assume every anime was, but I see your point.
Cin...dy...
“It would legalize the creation of human-animal chimeras,”
Awesome, I would love to have actual IRL furries. Some of the smartest and kindest people I know are in that fandom.
This bill also does not cover the expansion of duck hunting season, among other COMPLETELY UNRELATED issues.
Republicans OBVIOUSLY want to protect IVF which is why they're doing absolutely NOTHING to Protect it!
The GOP will do everything to stop the bill, then once it passes they will boast about how they protected parents' right!
On the one hand, the GOP wants to punish people with nonstandard reproductive needs or habits as it pleases their base. On the other, IVF is an expensive revenue stream and they're pissing off wealthy doctors and desperate people who want to be parents and have LOTS of disposable income.
I enjoy their self-imposed dilemma.
Can we turn her back into an egg?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi blocked quick passage of a bill on Wednesday afternoon that would have enshrined protections for in vitro fertilization and for the doctors who perform the procedure.
Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois requested to pass the bill by unanimous consent, meaning any one senator could block it from advancing.
Several Republican senators had warned in the past week that they believed legislation on IVF should be left at the state level, not the federal level, as they defended their support for the procedure after the Alabama Supreme Court warned that disposing of unused embryos could be categorized as “wrongful death.”
She noted that three of her five embryos were deemed nonviable, and that under the Alabama court’s interpretation, she would have had to either implant them and endure miscarriages, or discard them and face possible criminal charges.
“The bill before us today is a vast overreach that is full of poison pills that go way to far, far beyond ensuring legal access to IVF,” she argued.
The Mississippi Republican said that the bill did not include limits on genetic engineering, surrogacy, or even cloning.
The original article contains 395 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Neat.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News