I’m no expert, but I think you’re mixing up jail and prison. Prison would require a judge, jury and trial. But a cop can unilaterally throw someone in jail temporarily until their first court appearance.

From the article:

They [the sherif and a deputy] told Patterson to turn around and put her hands behind her back. As three of her kids watched, Patterson was handcuffed. The sheriff took her purse and phone, put her in the cruiser, and hauled her off to jail.

More than anything else I’ve heard, this Trump action scares me the most.

Military generals recognize the president as commander in chief. They’re generally going to follow the chain of command in situations where the US is attacking a strategic target, regardless of the ‘ethics’ of the situation.

If Trump wants to level the Gaza Strip or the West Bank or even parts of the Ukraine. They’ll likely follow orders because there’s a strategic value in those targets militarily. They might not agree with the strategy, but they’re primarily loyal to the office of the president regardless of who’s sitting in it.

But when generals would push back, is any scenario where following orders was a risk to the country with no strategic gain. Like attacking US citizens, using nuclear weapons, attacking strategic allies or starting World War III for no other reason than because Trump wanted to flex his ego.

The scenarios where these roles needed to be replaced by a Trump loyalist willing to do anything are… nightmarish.

This is what 24/7 news does to the brain. It completely fucks up people’s sense of how risky things are.

As humans we tend to assume that the probability of something happening is proportional to the number of times we can remember hearing of it happening.

Many people think children walking or playing alone are at high risk of getting abducted because they hear about it “all the time” on the news. Yet they don’t think twice about sticking their kids in the car and driving somewhere.

Statistically though you’re orders of magnitude more likely to kill your child in a car accident, than have them abducted by a random stranger while allowing them to play or walk somewhere unattended. Car accidents are common so they rarely make the news, Child Abductions are extremely rare And frequently make the news. The mom in the story could have literally driven the child to the town and put the child at a greater risk in doing so then letting the child walk there alone.

Both the cop in the story, and the Karen that called him, Have a completely distorted sense of how much risk this child was in, And it’s all because the news media makes us think the extremely rare is relatively common.

In recent years, the media has told stories in fear mongering ways in order to drive more ratings, Which is only the amplifying this effect.

When Americans become part of Canada it lowers the average IQ of both countries.

That’s not an accurate take. There are some pro-lifers who are like that but most are in favour of exceptions when it’s to save the mother’s life, or the fetus has a fatal deformity.

They just don’t (want to) understand that the intentionally vague wording of anti-abortion laws makes it basically impossible for doctors to perform medically indicated abortions until it’s too late to save the patient.

If you claim to be “pro-life” the least you can do is advocate for clear definitions of the medical circumstances where abortive medical procedures are permitted.

A scout’s job is to gather facts and information, and report back so that an army can make informed decisions.

Can’t imagine why a right-wing extremist would be afraid of an organization that teaches those skills to kids.

Did you read the article? The difference between the two transcripts was:

“The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters”

vs

“The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporter’s”

And stenographers use a special keyboard that records phonics, not words. It doesn’t have punctuation. That gets added later.

I can see you’re clearly not interested in understanding the situation the physician was in or discussing solutions that would have saved this patient’s life.

I’m not going to debate you further.

Do you hear yourself?

It was an emergency because she died?

She died days after it was too late for an abortion to save her.

If they performed the abortion when it would have saved her life, she wouldn’t have died, by your own logic it would’n’ve been an emergency.

And you’d be here arguing that the doctor should lose his license for performing an abortion when it wasn’t an emergency.

Yes.

That’s the problem with this law.

It takes the decision away from the medical experts, and puts in the hands of lawyers and judges who may or may not have a different agenda.

Any doctor that performs an abortion in Texas is risking a minimum $100,000 fine and permanently losing there license to practice medicine if lawyers, who are not medical professionals, decide it was medically necessary yet.

As a result, doctors in TX have been advised by their lawyers not to perform abortions unless the mother is literally minutes away from death, because otherwise you can’t prove that it was medically necessary.

In the case, the patient died of sepsis. Doctors couldn’t perform the abortion when she needed it because they couldn’t prove that it was medically necessary yet.

They knew that not performing the abortion would put mom at a much high risk of dying later. But they couldn’t legally prove that risk exists because all pregnancies involve some degree of risk.

If you want doctors to perform medical procedures when it’s medically necessary, you need doctors making that decision, not lawyers, not the state. That’s what Texas had before this law went into effect.

It’s literally created a trolly problem, it’s now better for the doctors to let some women die so they can save more lives later.

Not all of them.

The Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, was later.

But this was just days after Texas SB 8, 87th Regular Session went into effect. Which added two major laws related to abortion: the prohibition of abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected and the ability to file a civil lawsuit against anyone who provides or facilitates an abortion.

Doctors were warned by their lawyers that if they provided an ‘abortion’ after a fetal heartbeat was detected (the case here) that they would be sued and likely lose their license if they lost.

Free contraceptives is also a more effective way of preventing abortions than banning abortions.

It’s not quite as crazy as it seems. The older/larger floppy disk formats were more reliable due to their lower track density.

There was more surface area per byte of data. The old floppy disks could be written once and read for years in harsher environments. New floppy disks we more prone to failure after a few years.

I can understand that a doctor might personally be against termination of a pregnancy when it isn’t medically necessary. I don’t agree, but I can understand being against it.

But even if you’re a doctor that feels that way, do you really want the state second guessing your decision if you performed an emergency abortion that was medically necessary?

Even a pro-life doctor should be 100% against the state getting involved in a patient’s medical decisions.

The problem with all “abortions are illegal except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk” laws is who gets to decide when the mother’s life is at sufficiently at risk?

Any pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life to some extent. The only person who should be making the decision of how much risk it too much is the mother after an informed and private discussion with her doctor.

These stupid laws today make it so that even if it’s an emergency, any doctor performing an abortion is taking a risk that the state won’t agree it was an emergency (or perhaps that it wasn’t an emergency yet). That means that even in an emergency it gets left to the last minute where it’s high risk for everyone.

The only way to actually be pro-life and make abortions safe when it’s medically required. Is to make abortion legal and left as a decision between a woman and her doctor.

America avoiding giving money to low income schools?

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

Yes that’s correct.

To be more clear, nuclear waste is only a small percentage of the hazardous waste we’ve been disposing of by permanently burying it.

Yes. Nuclear waste is tiny. That’s the point.

Nuclear isn’t the only hazardous waste we dispose of burying it.

We’re disposing of tonnes of hazardous waste daily. Only a tiny percentage of that is nuclear waste.

Yet for some reason everyone loses their mind about the comparatively tiny amount of hazardous waste from nuclear and no one cares about the significantly larger about of hazardous waste from the eventual disposal of solar panels and 100s of other sources of hazardous waste.

For over a century, the standard way we’ve been disposing of hazardous materials that can’t be easily recycled is to permanently bury it. We’re doing it with thousands of tonnes of hazardous materials daily.

A nuclear power plant only generates about 3 cubic meters of hazardous nuclear waste per year.

At the typical sizes we’re currently building them, you need 50-100 solar or wind farms to match the electricity output of a single nuclear reactor.

When we eventually dispose of the solar panels from those farms we literally end up with more toxic waste in heavy metals like cadmium than the nuclear power plant produced.

No solution is perfect.

But contrary to the propaganda, nuclear is one of our cleanest options.