How do women feel about their abortions after the operation and up to five years later?
Quote:A week after their abortions, about 51 percent of women expressed mostly positive emotions, 17 percent expressed negative emotions and 20 percent said they had none or few. As time went by, the number who felt few or no emotions rose sharply. At the five-year mark, 84 percent reported either primarily positive emotions or none at all, while 6 percent had primarily negative feelings. There was “no evidence” of new negative or positive emotions, the authors said.
Immediately after their abortions, 95 percent of those who agreed to interviews said they had made the right decision. At five years, that percentage increased to 99 percent.
WP
Those are much more robust results than even I would have expected. And they certainly put the lie to the standard right wing anti-abortion rhetoric and claims.
Of course he did.
Quote:After report that Trump administration is abandoning Uranium One investigation, Hannity continues to claim there was wrongdoing
According to a report, U.S. attorney John Huber will close the two-year review of the U.S. government’s decision not to block the sale of the company known as Uranium One without bringing charges. According to The Washington Post, “Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing” and that the inquiry will involve “no criminal charges or other known impacts.”
Fox News was heavily invested in pushing this pseudo-scandal. A main propagator of the conspiracy theory was Fox News’ Sean Hannity, whose show at one point in 2017 was virtually built around it. Following the report about the end of the investigation, Hannity continued to claim there was evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.
MM
The problem with the 2 year Justice Department investigation is that it's findings and conclusions did not match the propaganda stories Hannity and others at FOX have been pushing. Hannity's solution? Repeat the stories that the 2 year investigation found to be baseless.
Quote:Bloomberg and Steyer Reveal That Billionaires Are Underinvesting In Politics
Tom Steyer has the résumé of a hedge-fund manager and the charisma of an accountant. His public speaking skills are minimal, political experience, negligible, and taste in ties, unforgivable. His natural constituency is ostensibly that subset of progressive Democrats who want their party’s nominee to be both a populist outsider and early investor in private prisons.
And a new poll puts him in second place in the South Carolina primary.
Michael Bloomberg was, until a couple of weeks ago, a fervent proponent of racially discriminatory policing, financial deregulation, and Social Security cuts. He endorsed George W. Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention. The 77-year-old billionaire has an undisputed history of making sexist remarks to female subordinates and three active sexual harassment lawsuits pending against his company. He has not appeared in a single Democratic presidential debate, and is not on the ballot in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina.
And he is polling in fifth place nationally, with more than twice as much voter support as Minnesota senator (and media darling) Amy Klobuchar.
There are a lot of reasons why Steyer and Bloomberg are outpolling many Democratic politicians with significant legislative accomplishments and strong intraparty support – 260 million reasons, to be precise. That is the number of dollars that Steyer and Bloomberg have together spent on television advertisements. The entire rest of the Democratic field has collectively spent $222 million.
NYMag
As if American democracy didn't have enough problems already.
Quote:NYT Politics
@nytpolitics
The American Cancer Society rebutted President Trump's attempt to claim credit for the sharpest one-year drop in cancer death rate ever recorded, saying the drop reflects "prevention, early detection and treatment advances that occurred in prior years"
No, no, no! Trump would not lie like that. The American Cancer Society are pointy-head deep state traitors!
@coldjoint,
something like this should never even have risen, let alone whining that
''he probably wont do any lasting damage to himself
I wonder whether hes been taught to never run with scissors
Pat Buchanan: Can Trump still avoid war with Iran?
September 24, 2019
President Trump does not want war with Iran. America does not want war with Iran. Even the Senate Republicans are advising against military action in response to that attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities.
If neither America nor Iran wants war, what has brought us to the brink?
Answer: The policy imposed by Trump, Pompeo and John Bolton after our unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
Our course was fixed by the policy we chose to pursue.
Imposing on Iran the most severe sanctions ever by one modern nation on another, short of war, the U.S., through “maximum pressure,” sought to break the Iranian regime and bend it to America’s will.
Submit to U.S. demands, we told Tehran, or watch your economy crumble and collapse and your people rise up in revolt and overthrow your regime.
Among the 12 demands issued by Pompeo:
End all enrichment of uranium or processing of plutonium. Halt all testing of ballistic missiles. Cut off Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Disarm and demobilize Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq. Terminate support for the Houthi rebels resisting Saudi intervention in Yemen.
The demands Pompeo made were those that victorious nations impose upon the defeated or defenseless. Pompeo’s problem: Iran was neither.
Hezbollah is dominant in Lebanon. Along with Russia and Hezbollah, Iran and its militias enabled Bashar Assad to emerge victorious in an eight-year Syrian civil war. And the scores of thousands of Iranian-trained and -allied Shiite militia fighters in the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq outnumber the 5,200 U.S. troops there 20 times over.
Hence Tehran’s defiant answer to Pompeo’s 12 demands:
We will not capitulate, and if your sanctions prevent our oil from reaching our traditional buyers, we will prevent the oil of your Sunni allies from getting out of the Persian Gulf.
Hence, this summer, we saw tankers sabotaged and seized in the Gulf, insurance rates for tanker traffic surge, Iran shoot down a $130 million U.S. Predator drone, and an attack on Saudi oil production facilities that cut Riyadh’s exports in half.
This has been followed by an Iranian warning that a Saudi attack on Iran means war, and a U.S. attack will be met with a counterattack. We don’t want war, the Iranians are saying, but if the alternative is to choke to death under U.S. sanctions, we will use our weapons to fight yours.
America might emerge victorious in such a war, but the cost could be calamitous, imperiling that fifth of the world’s oil that traverses the Strait of Hormuz, and causing a global recession.
A fundamental question arises: If the United States was not attacked, why is it our duty to respond militarily to an attack on Saudi Arabia?
Saudi Arabia is not a member of NATO. It is not a treaty ally. The Middle East Security Alliance or “Arab NATO” chatted up a year ago to contain Iran — of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states — was stillborn. We are under no obligation to fight the Saudis’ war.
Nor is Saudi Arabia a natural American ally.
The question President Trump confronts today:
How does he get his country back off the limb he climbed out on while listening to the Republican neocons and hawks he defeated in 2016, but who have had an inordinate influence over his foreign policy?
@coldjoint,
But the results of this ancient history are happening today.
@RABEL222,
This is the Middle East where they talk as if the Crusades happened yesterday.
The only ancient history they've got is ancient history.
@izzythepush,
The Gulf States are a prime example of Western neo colonialism. In this respect America is only continuing the policies of Britain and France.
The oil wealth should belong to the people but instead it's in the hand of a tiny group of royals. They use this wealth to run the country without the need for any form of accountability. If you don't need to raise taxes you don't need a parliament or any form of legislature.
These royals then spend their wealth on Western weapons to keep the locals under control. It's bad enough in countries like Saudi Arabia where the rulers and population are mostly Sunni Muslims, but in somewhere like Bahrain where a tiny Sunni elite rules over a Shia population the cracks are showing.
This anti Democratic process naturally fuels resentment which is why we have a rise in extremists, because they're the only ones who have constantly stood up to Western Imperialism.
The enemy isn't Islam, it's rampant Capitalism and Neo Imperialism.
Romney says he’ll vote for inclusion of witnesses in Senate trial. If he actually goes through with it, I’ll take back half the bad things I’ve said about him.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/mitt-romney-announces-he-will-vote-against-mcconnell-and-approve-witnesses-during-impeachment-report/
@snood,
I'm all for witnesses as well.
Any case of such importance should be tried in a fair and just manner, including as many witnesses as required, to seek a fair hearing.
