this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
81 points (100.0% liked)

Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

2453 readers
246 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The House passed a bill allowing the president to revoke nonprofits' tax-exempt status if deemed terrorist-supporting, which critics, including Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, argue could threaten healthcare services like cancer screenings, birth control, STI testing, abortion care, and gender-affirming care; as the bill moves to the Senate, Planned Parenthood warns of potential funding cuts affecting public healthcare.

The ACLU and reproductive rights groups like Planned Parenthood of America vocally opposed the bill and tried to warn lawmakers of the dangers.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

First time the bill almost passed it included yays by Democrats like Adam Schiff. This says 15 Democrats still voted for it. Won't be long before humanitarian nonprofits are labeled terrorist organizations for sending food to kids.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'll take small wins where I can: That 15 is down from something like 57 from last time. Reach out to your Senators in mass numbers. Let your voice be heard. We cannot know the impact that will have unless we try.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They just lost to Trump cause they couldn't bother listening to voters. I love your optimism, but I say its time we kick em to the curb and get some real progressives.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I agree. However, the Democrat name still has respect. I say we reform the party by keeping the name and replacing the old fools who seem so intent on learning the wrong lessons.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Does it though? I guess people like the idea of what they imagine Democrats can be again, or become, but that ship sailed a long time ago. Facebook rebranded to Meta after the Cambridge Analytica scandal and that seemed to have worked well.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

This is done in the primaries.

[–] droporain@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 month ago

It's not like you can get fined for given food to homeless people in the USA already in places. This won't be abused /s

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Why the fuck would you want this kond of power in hands of the president. At least keep the power with the Senate.. or with the judiciary branch where it belongs.

[–] Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Yikes. This will end poorly, very poorly

[–] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago

For those wishing to know more. Section 4 applies the standard that is found in 18 USC § 2339B

Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).

Who that applies to I leave to the reader, but that's the standard that would be argued in Court over any determination that the President gave to any entity.

[–] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

I wish we would do this with churches.