704

The senator did not seem to understand that the ruling on embryos would lead to fewer children being born, not more.

One of the most maddening aspects of the Republican plot to control women’s bodies is that, in many cases, these people couldn’t pass a ninth-grade biology class (and oftentimes, it’s more like fifth grade). Yes, from claiming an ectopic pregnancy can be reimplanted to suggesting that the anatomy of a human female is no different from that of, say, a dog or a horse, the conservatives trying to take away reproductive rights and bodily autonomy often have no idea what the f--k they’re talking about. And Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville is obviously no exception.

When asked on Thursday if he had “a reaction to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on the fact that embryos are children,” Tuberville said, “Yeah, I was all for it. We need to have more kids, we need to have an opportunity to do that, and I thought this was the right thing to do.” Informed that IVF is a method by which people are able to have children when they otherwise could not, and that some clinics have paused the procedure as a result of the ruling, Tuberville responded, “Well, that’s for another conversation. We need more kids. We need people to have the opportunity to have kids.”

After another reporter asked what he had to “say to the women right now in Alabama who no longer have access to IVF, and will not, as a result of this ruling,” a clearly stumped Tuberville answered: “That’s a hard one. It really is. Really hard. ’Cause, again, you want people to have that opportunity…. We need more kids.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] qarbone@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

There needs to be a "federal tutor" position that collates, issues, and grades tests given to the idiots voting on these laws. If you fail, your vote doesn't count.

No, a senator shouldn't have to know differential calculus nor a govenor, endocrinology. But they should be able to source people who can supply them with the right answers.

[-] Chef@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 years ago

What you are describing was the original definition of “lobbyist.” They were supposed to be experts from their field who would assist and inform legislators in crafting related laws and regulations.

What they became was a legalized bribery machine.

[-] qarbone@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Ah, there we go. I was sure it would be corrupted in some way to be shitty. I was banking on bullshit complaints about the nature of correctness, whenever some idiot failed the test. But buying it out directly is smarter.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

They have access to such people any time they want. The problem is that experts never seem to tell them what they want to here.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

A random hick with a mail order extremist evangelist pastor diploma isn't a real expert? Who would have thought.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

While I understand where the sentiment is coming from, the country has a really racist history with tying voting to tests. Literacy tests were illegally used to stop black people from voting in the wake of the civil war, because black people were (at the time) fresh out of slavery and largely illiterate.

Black people had recently been given the right to vote, but states went “ah but you need to either own land (which was only white people, because the freshly freed slaves couldn’t afford to buy land,) or pass a written test (which was designed so literate white people could pass, but illiterate black people couldn’t) first.” It was a blatant way to disenfranchise the new black voters and prevent them from having a voice and representation in congress.

this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
704 points (99.4% liked)

politics

31238 readers
2235 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS