Texas killing this child for losing a pregnancy

Texas didn't kill her for loosing a pregnancy - Texas killed her by making her losing the pregnancy take too long by terrifying doctors out of speeding the process along, causing her to be in and out of hospital ERs repeatedly while doctors essentially played "hot potato" with her despite all of them knowing what needed done out of fear of being thrown in prison for a century if they did it, causing her to eventually develop sepsis and die.

It's much, much worse than "killing her for losing a pregnancy", and exactly how awful it is and how it got to that point needs to be spelled out in detail. Otherwise you'll have people pointing out that the Texas law has an exception for medical emergencies, and it needs pointed out and doubled down on that by the time the doctors were reasonably certain that a conservative Texas court would agree with them it was a medical emergency (aka she'd already developed a systemic infection), she was already doomed.

Are they? It literally points out "Who you voted for is secret" on the ad, right above where it says that people will know if you voted.

...and yet they've had power before - several times, including once with it being literally this dipshit - and haven't burned it all down to gain power yet.

But then this election is different, it's the most important election of our lifetimes, just like the Democrats have said about every other election since at least 2004. Down to the literal phrase "the most important election of our lifetimes."

The reality is both major parties benefit from the system, and both market based on fear because they don't have anything positive to offer voters that isn't an outright lie that the voters know is an outright lie. The big difference is the the GOP markets on fear of the other and the Dems market on fear of the GOP.

Anyways, why the fuck was he driving people out of the plains? Homies were just chilling in their iron chariots.

For the same reason as now - because Israel wanted their land.

Tusday was maybe the best a thousand years ago but who cares?

Closer to two hundred years ago, since the law in question was passed in 1854. But the point was it's that way for a reason, and that reason was a good reason at the time it was done. It seems so weird now because of social change that has since made it inconvenient.

It can also be changed if Congress wanted to, as it's just a regular law and not part of the Constitution or something else that would be harder to change.

On my instance you just click "Communities" at the top and it gives you a list of communities with three options at the top Subscribed/Local/All just like the main feed. Click all and you can browse or search the list of all communities, though the search is not great.

It's on Tuesday because that was actually convenient with the flow of business at the time. Most were Christian and wouldn't work or travel on Sunday if possible, it often took a day's travel to get to the nearest town with a polling place, and Wednesday was market day.

If Sunday and Wednesday are right out and you need a day's travel time (which also can't be Sunday or Wednesday) you're basically left with Tuesday or Friday. And if you're going to be in town for the market anyways then Tuesday makes more sense.

It is in November because that's after the biggest harvests, but not so far after that the weather is likely to be rough. And it's the Tuesday after the first Monday so that it can't overlap with All Saints Day.

On the upside it could be changed with a regular old law, it doesn't require an amendment or anything.

And sometimes that goes the exact opposite way. For example, Lorena Bobbitt was acquitted on an insanity defense and spent less than two months in counseling.

John Oliver did an episode on "stand your ground" ages ago

Doesn't require stand your ground, unless you could reasonably flee the attacker. If they've got a gun it's not too hard to argue that you couldn't reasonably flee or they'd shoot you in the back.

Stand your ground just removes the duty to try to get away from an attacker if possible, and is only the law in some states.

Puerto Rico periodically votes on whether or not to pursue becoming a state, becoming a state doesn't win except in one vote that was specifically a non-binding vote on the topic and that had much lower turnout than other votes on the idea.

DC was literally created specifically to not be a state, so that no state held the seat of the federal government.

Do you or have you ever worked in science? I did for a bit and that was not my impression.

I imagine it depends heavily on the field. In some fields there are ideas that one can't seriously study because they're considered settled or can't be studied without doing more harm than any believed good that could be achieved. There are others subject to essentially ideological capture where the barrier to publish is largely determined by how ideologically aligned you are (fields linked to an identity group have a bad habit of being about activism first and accurate observation of reality second).

Because a carrier's data on you is not your person or belongings. The companies holding this data are selling access to it, so it's not being searched, it's being offered.

In other words, the same reason as why they don't need a search warrant if there's a breaking and the business across the street volunteers their security camera footage, even if you're on that footage.