Abortion information and disinformation; COVID update

 Combatting abortion disinformation: In a brilliant piece of journalism, a NYT article strikes into the heart of a vicious, decades-long disinformation campaign by forced birthers. They have successfully used emotion-provoking disinformation to dissuade many pregnant women from getting an abortion. This is the kind of fetus-oriented imagery that forced birthers routinely use to deceive and dissuade:

About 80% of abortions are done by week nine of a pregnancy. What the fetal tissue actually looks like at week 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 is shown below, left to right, top center to bottom right. There is no discernable, innocent little body to be seen because no such thing had developed by week nine. The top left image is uterine tissue, not fetus. This is what ~80% of abortions look like. This is not the kind of inconvenient information that forced birthers would ever show to a pregnant woman.

Now, compare the week 8 fetal tissue (center of lower row) with the image below of what forced birthers show the fetus allegedly looks like at week 8:

See the difference? This exemplifies the vicious, morally rotted tactics that forced birthers routinely rely on to deceive and dissuade. With infallible God is on the forced birther side, lies, deceit and guilt built on lies and deceit are good and proper. What a bunch of shameless, morally bankrupt liars. 

What was the reaction to the publication of the real photos? Lots of people, including some pro-abortion advocates thought they were faked. The NYT commented:

The Guardian published our first photos on Oct. 19; they went viral, appearing in media outlets and getting shared widely on social media.

Many people, even those who support abortion rights, did not believe the photos were accurate. Some insisted we had deliberately removed the embryos before taking the photos. The images weren’t consistent with those often seen in embryological textbooks, magnified on ultrasounds or used in anti-abortion propaganda; these enlarged images are not what you see with the naked eye after an abortion. A Stanford gynecologic pathologist has validated our photos, but many people could not believe the pictures were presented unaltered.  

We weren’t surprised by the vitriol. We knew we’d face pushback. While we have long felt comfortable showing our patients the pregnancy tissue after an abortion, we went through serious consideration before making the images public on our website. We did not want our message to undermine our unequivocal support for patients who make this decision at later stages when there is a visible embryo or fetus.

This shows, once again, just how powerful and effective a sustained, well-funded dark free speech campaign really can be. Actual medical professionals put out accurate information, but sustained propaganda has undermined trust in doctors and even convenient truth. Even people who just want the truth are blindsided and derailed by forced birther deceit and emotional manipulation. 

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

A flash of common sense about COVID: The WaPo reports that the FDA experienced a flash of common sense:

FDA proposes switching to annual coronavirus vaccine, mimicking flu model

 

The Food and Drug Administration is proposing a crucial change in the way the coronavirus vaccine is handled: Switching to a once-a-year shot that targets the strain expected to pose the greatest threat during the following winter — a system akin to what is used for the influenza vaccine.

It was obvious to me over a year ago that this is exactly what needs to be done to deal with COVID for the long term. That it took this long for experts to see something this blatantly obvious is troubling to say the least.  

Biden world giddy at MTG, Gosar, and Boebert being placed on Oversight

 Is this for real? 😮

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/18/biden-world-celebrates-gop-oversight-picks-00078447

Consider:

House Republicans’ installation of some of their most incendiary conservatives on the Oversight Committee is sparking an unexpected feeling inside the White House: unbridled glee.

The panel tasked with probing Biden policies and actions, as well as the president’s own family, will be stocked with some of the chamber’s biggest firebrands and die-hard Trumpists — including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) — ideal figureheads for a White House eager to deride the opposition party as unhinged.

“[W]ith these members joining the Oversight Committee,” White House oversight spokesperson Ian Sams said in a statement, “it appears that House Republicans may be setting the stage for divorced-from-reality political stunts, instead of engaging in bipartisan work on behalf of the American people.”

Democrats haven’t yet named their members to the top House investigative committees, but they’re already confident the Republican-led panels will self-destruct.

“The more unserious people performing congressional oversight the easier this is going to be for the [Biden] administration. And in that regard I think the White House hit the jackpot. This is a crowd that will make [former House Oversight chair] Darrell Issa look intellectual.”

OK OK, not everyone is that excited, as noted:

 The jubilation was tempered, somewhat, by Democrats on the Hill who expressed more apprehension about the posting.

Predictions? Will these investigations actually help Biden? Or will they hurt? Are Republicans overplaying their hand? Or hitting all the right notes? 

Decisions, decisions…

Are you a “one-issue above all” voter?  Many people are. For example:

• The religious often vote strictly on the abortion issue.
• Gun advocates often vote strictly on more lax gun laws. 
• Health professionals often vote strictly on medical issues (prescription costs, universal healthcare, etc.). 
• Gay people often vote strictly on more sexual equality rights.
• PeTA members often vote strictly for the candidate who promotes animal rights.
• Etc.

So…

1. What are your political issues? 
2. Does one issue trump all others? 
3. How do you reconcile your vote if your potential candidate has some views that match yours, and others that do not?  What factor is the “clincher/decider” for you to give them your vote?

Thanks for favoriting and posting.

News bits: New nuclear reactor design gets approval, etc.

Nuclear reactor design approved: The AP reports that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has certified the design for what will be the first small modular nuclear reactor in the US. This is a big deal. The US desperately needs to get away from carbon energy as fast as possible. Doing that will require a lot of non-intermittent power generation unless battery technology makes a vast advance real soon. That’s unlikely. For right now, nuclear power is probably the best option we have for generating a lot of clean power to supplement intermittent solar and wind power. The AP writes:

The rule that certifies the design was published Thursday in the Federal Register. It means that companies seeking to build and operate a nuclear power plant can pick the design for a 50-megawatt [about 37,500 homes], advanced light-water small modular nuclear reactor by Oregon-based NuScale Power and apply to the NRC for a license.

It’s the final determination that the design is acceptable for use, so it can’t be legally challenged during the licensing process when someone applies to build and operate a nuclear power plant, NRC spokesperson Scott Burnell said Friday. The rule becomes effective in late February.

This is really good news. We need hundreds of these little reactors.

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

Rut roh! Biden really screwed the pooch this time: After a 13-hour search of Biden’s home in Delaware, DoJ investigators found another batch of classified US government documents. The NYT writes:

Investigators for the Justice Department on Friday seized more than a half-dozen documents, some of them classified, at President Biden’s residence in Wilmington, Del., after conducting a 13-hour search of the home, the president’s personal lawyer said Saturday evening.

The remarkable search of a sitting president’s home by federal agents — at the invitation of Mr. Biden’s lawyers — dramatically escalated the legal and political situation for the president, the latest in a series of discoveries that has already led to a special counsel investigation. 

During Friday’s search, six more items with classified markings — including some documents from his time as a senator and others from his time as vice president — were taken by investigators, along with surrounding materials, according to the statement from Bob Bauer, Mr. Biden’s attorney.

Jeez, what a mess. One can just feel Faux News firing up its sanctimonious outrage machine.

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

Exemptions in anti-abortion laws are not being granted: One of the things that I greatly fear from radical right Christian nationalism is how it deals with the rule of law. In my opinion, it is often biased and/or incoherent. Therein lies the power of government to discriminate. The NYT writes:

Last summer, a Mississippi woman sought an abortion after, she said, a friend had raped her. Her state prohibits most abortions but allows them for rape victims. Yet she could not find a doctor to provide one.

In September, an Indiana woman learned that a fetal defect meant her baby would die shortly after birth, if not sooner. Her state’s abortion ban included an exception for such cases, but she was referred to Illinois or Michigan.

An Ohio woman carrying triplets faced a high risk of dangerous complications, including delivering too early. When she tried to get an abortion in September through Ohio’s exception for patients with a medical need, she was turned away. 

In the months since the court’s decision, very few exceptions to these new abortion bans have been granted, a New York Times review of available state data and interviews with dozens of physicians, advocates and lawmakers revealed.

The NYT article goes on to point out that women with money are travelling out of states that have abortion exemptions because the requirements to qualify are difficult and unpredictable. On top of that, doctors and hospitals turn away patients, because laws are ambiguous and they face of threat of criminal penalty for making a mistake in applying an exemption. 

So, even when a law looks neutral, how it is written and/or implemented can be highly discriminatory. In my opinion, this is the kind of result that Christian nationalist elites want. To them, the rule of law is God-given for them to apply as they see fit. That is theocracy, not democracy.

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

Blowback against the Supreme Court investigation of who leaked the Dobbs anti-abortion decision intensifies: The NYT writes:

The investigation was an attempt by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to right the institution and its image after a grievous breach and slide in public trust. Instead, it may have lowered confidence inside the court and out. 

While noting that 97 workers had been formally interviewed, the report did not say whether the justices or their spouses had been. .... Public reaction was scathing: “Not even a sentence explaining why they were or weren’t questioned,” tweeted Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, a conservative magazine.

A day later, the court was forced to issue a second statement saying that the marshal had in fact conferred with the justices, but on very different terms from others at the institution. Lower-level employees had been formally interrogated, recorded, pressed to sign affidavits denying any involvement and warned that they could lose their jobs if they failed to answer questions fully, according to interviews and the report.

In contrast, conversations with the justices had been a two-way “iterative process” in which they asked as well as answered questions, the marshal, Gail A. Curley, wrote. She had seen no need for them to sign affidavits, she said.

But Chief Justice Roberts was a staunch defender of the court’s independence, reluctant to let outsiders interfere. “The Judiciary’s power to manage its internal affairs,” he had written months before, “insulates courts from inappropriate political influence and is crucial to preserving public trust in its work as a separate and co-equal branch of government.”

Once again, the court is blind to the fact that the six Republicans on the bench are seem by many Americans, maybe most, as political partisans. One can imagine that many or most Republicans believe that the three Democrats on the court are political partisans too. In general, some polling indicates that much or most of the public is distrustful. 

Roberts cannot or will not see that the unwarranted secrecy he believes insulates the court allows the public to believe that Republican judges are political partisans working for the Republican Party. Supreme Court secrecy can cut two ways. It can make the court less susceptible to outside political influence or it can make it more susceptible to hidden inside political influence.