oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 8, 2019 16:58:30 GMT -5
But as long as Georgia's new law stands, I won't see anything that continues to film there. Honestly can't see how any woman would agree to work there.
Off to research things i might otherwise buy that are manufactured in Gilead...
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,363
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
Member is Online
|
Post by busymom on May 8, 2019 17:39:45 GMT -5
Yup, I've been hearing about the boycotts, too. If the boycott spreads to Georgia products, I wonder what they'll do with all of those peaches & pecans?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 8, 2019 17:47:17 GMT -5
What's up with Georgia now?
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 8, 2019 17:51:16 GMT -5
I will finally get daughter to give up Coca-Cola.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,163
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on May 8, 2019 17:56:56 GMT -5
It's similar to the Iowa law that was found unconstitutional.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 8, 2019 18:08:23 GMT -5
Worse due to criminalization.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 22:36:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 18:43:34 GMT -5
It has to do with the criminalization of abortion. I think if we don't discuss abortion, the laws surrounding it, etc. the thread is ok. But I'm definitely not in charge.
Oped is talking about the economic impact. It will be severe as some other states have experienced over gay rights, Confederate statues, etc.
Boycotts do make a difference. Ask Montgomery about Rosa Parks.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,363
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
Member is Online
|
Post by busymom on May 8, 2019 20:16:29 GMT -5
Anyone else remember the boycott of potatoes, back when Idaho was looking to change their abortion laws? I looked it up, and that was back in 1990. The boycott must have worked, because the governor then backed down.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on May 9, 2019 7:16:21 GMT -5
I think the women in GA should refuse to have sex, because even if you have a miscarriage, you will be investigated and could be charged with manslaughter, if you did anything that the State believes might have caused the miscarriage, like smoke or drink (even if you aren't aware you're pregnant yet). And if you leave the state and have a miscarriage someplace else, you'll be investigated, too, to verify it was actually a miscarriage, and if you can't prove it - off to jail.
Who wants to risk maybe accidentally getting pregnant when you could wind up in prison? Better to declare a moratorium on all carnal relations, or at least those that might cause pregnancy.
Let's see how many men continue to support this new law when only post menopausal women are willing to do some horizontal dancing.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,510
|
Post by chiver78 on May 9, 2019 7:18:20 GMT -5
It has to do with the criminalization of abortion. I think if we don't discuss abortion, the laws surrounding it, etc. the thread is ok. But I'm definitely not in charge. Oped is talking about the economic impact. It will be severe as some other states have experienced over gay rights, Confederate statues, etc. Boycotts do make a difference. Ask Montgomery about Rosa Parks. correct. I'd hate to have to move this to the inferno. thanks, all, in advance for your cooperation. -chiver mod
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 9, 2019 7:33:57 GMT -5
I live in Atlanta. What's bothering me is the lack of boycott outrage. The previous governor vetoed a religious freedom bill (because it was really intended to allow people to discriminate against gays) as the business community was virulently opposed. I'm not getting that feeling right now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 22:36:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2019 8:06:40 GMT -5
I think the women in GA should refuse to have sex, because even if you have a miscarriage, you will be investigated and could be charged with manslaughter, if you did anything that the State believes might have caused the miscarriage, like smoke or drink (even if you aren't aware you're pregnant yet). And if you leave the state and have a miscarriage someplace else, you'll be investigated, too, to verify it was actually a miscarriage, and if you can't prove it - off to jail.
Who wants to risk maybe accidentally getting pregnant when you could wind up in prison? Better to declare a moratorium on all carnal relations, or at least those that might cause pregnancy.
Let's see how many men continue to support this new law when only post menopausal women are willing to do some horizontal dancing.
So you are suggesting women boycott sex? I suspect that if you could get women on board, there would be a revision of the law before the weekend.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 9, 2019 8:15:08 GMT -5
I think the women in GA should refuse to have sex, because even if you have a miscarriage, you will be investigated and could be charged with manslaughter, if you did anything that the State believes might have caused the miscarriage, like smoke or drink (even if you aren't aware you're pregnant yet). And if you leave the state and have a miscarriage someplace else, you'll be investigated, too, to verify it was actually a miscarriage, and if you can't prove it - off to jail.
Who wants to risk maybe accidentally getting pregnant when you could wind up in prison? Better to declare a moratorium on all carnal relations, or at least those that might cause pregnancy.
Let's see how many men continue to support this new law when only post menopausal women are willing to do some horizontal dancing.
So you are suggesting women boycott sex? I suspect that if you could get women on board, there would be a revision of the law before the weekend. While that's an amusing idea I don't think it will actually work! My best hope is that business outrage will result in the attorney general accepting the bill is unconstitutional and therefore not fighting the challenge in court.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on May 9, 2019 8:41:28 GMT -5
So you are suggesting women boycott sex? I suspect that if you could get women on board, there would be a revision of the law before the weekend. While that's an amusing idea I don't think it will actually work! My best hope is that business outrage will result in the attorney general accepting the bill is unconstitutional and therefore not fighting the challenge in court. I would think the boycott would have to go way beyond Georgia though. Georgia exports a lot of their agricultural to nearby states. As the way the law is written it appears to be legal, definitely puts a strong hold on abortion availability. A major win for pro birth. I live in SC I would love to see SC adopt the same bill here.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on May 9, 2019 8:50:26 GMT -5
It has to do with the criminalization of abortion. I think if we don't discuss abortion, the laws surrounding it, etc. the thread is ok. But I'm definitely not in charge. Oped is talking about the economic impact. It will be severe as some other states have experienced over gay rights, Confederate statues, etc. Boycotts do make a difference. Ask Montgomery about Rosa Parks. Ask Arizona who was the only state that didn't acknowledge MLK day, until the Superbowl said F-you, and then suddenly our racist legislators figured it out.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on May 9, 2019 8:56:52 GMT -5
While that's an amusing idea I don't think it will actually work! My best hope is that business outrage will result in the attorney general accepting the bill is unconstitutional and therefore not fighting the challenge in court. I would think the boycott would have to go way beyond Georgia though. Georgia exports a lot of their agricultural to nearby states. As the way the law is written it appears to be legal, definitely puts a strong hold on abortion availability. A major win for pro birth. I live in SC I would love to see SC adopt the same bill here. Atlanta has a ton of large businesses with a lot of clout. Delta, for instance, is the primary reason Hartfield is so enormous. There are a lot of professional organizations that periodically hold their national conventions in Atlanta (I've attended a few) and major sports teams (and potential playoffs) that could book their games elsewhere.
There was some proposed law several years ago (I think one about no trans people in bathrooms) that got quickly shot down once Delta and the sports franchises applied their weight. (I remember there was one state politician who tried to claim Delta could never afford to move someplace else, so Atlanta had them over a barrel - he shut up pretty quickly.)
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on May 9, 2019 8:57:54 GMT -5
I think the women in GA should refuse to have sex, because even if you have a miscarriage, you will be investigated and could be charged with manslaughter, if you did anything that the State believes might have caused the miscarriage, like smoke or drink (even if you aren't aware you're pregnant yet). And if you leave the state and have a miscarriage someplace else, you'll be investigated, too, to verify it was actually a miscarriage, and if you can't prove it - off to jail.
Who wants to risk maybe accidentally getting pregnant when you could wind up in prison? Better to declare a moratorium on all carnal relations, or at least those that might cause pregnancy.
Let's see how many men continue to support this new law when only post menopausal women are willing to do some horizontal dancing.
So you are suggesting women boycott sex? I suspect that if you could get women on board, there would be a revision of the law before the weekend. Yes.
Mr Happy has told me on several occasions that if the women of the world ever really understood the power they possess, the men would be toast.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on May 9, 2019 9:04:28 GMT -5
I live in Atlanta. What's bothering me is the lack of boycott outrage. The previous governor vetoed a religious freedom bill (because it was really intended to allow people to discriminate against gays) as the business community was virulently opposed. I'm not getting that feeling right now. I live in Georgia and I'll have to say this was snuck in under cover of night. I didn't hear anything about it in the media until it was already passed, and haven't heard many comments since.
I suspect a lot of people haven't read the fine print and don't understand how aggressively this assigns prison time to women (previously, most of these proposed rules targeted the providers of the operation, and not the patients).
I also blame the constant din of Trump nonsense for clogging up the airways all the time, making it hard for any other news to get through.
I think this was a deliberately provocative bill GA passed in order to get it sent to the Supreme Court, because the proponents believe Trump has successfully padded the SC with enough like minded judges to change the law of the land.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on May 9, 2019 9:05:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure why we would expect the women of Georgia to go on a sex strike when many of them likely voted for the politicians that support the legislation.
It is going to take financial influences outside of the state to make GA feel the pain of this decision. Money, and the power it brings, are the only thing that matters to these people.
|
|
azucena
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 13:23:14 GMT -5
Posts: 5,199
|
Post by azucena on May 9, 2019 9:55:55 GMT -5
It has to do with the criminalization of abortion. I think if we don't discuss abortion, the laws surrounding it, etc. the thread is ok. But I'm definitely not in charge. Oped is talking about the economic impact. It will be severe as some other states have experienced over gay rights, Confederate statues, etc. Boycotts do make a difference. Ask Montgomery about Rosa Parks. correct. I'd hate to have to move this to the inferno. thanks, all, in advance for your cooperation. -chiver mod Could someone PM me the password for the inferno, I might venture inside.
|
|
azucena
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 13:23:14 GMT -5
Posts: 5,199
|
Post by azucena on May 9, 2019 9:59:20 GMT -5
I would think the boycott would have to go way beyond Georgia though. Georgia exports a lot of their agricultural to nearby states. As the way the law is written it appears to be legal, definitely puts a strong hold on abortion availability. A major win for pro birth. I live in SC I would love to see SC adopt the same bill here. Atlanta has a ton of large businesses with a lot of clout. Delta, for instance, is the primary reason Hartfield is so enormous. There are a lot of professional organizations that periodically hold their national conventions in Atlanta (I've attended a few) and major sports teams (and potential playoffs) that could book their games elsewhere.
There was some proposed law several years ago (I think one about no trans people in bathrooms) that got quickly shot down once Delta and the sports franchises applied their weight. (I remember there was one state politician who tried to claim Delta could never afford to move someplace else, so Atlanta had them over a barrel - he shut up pretty quickly.)
Why is it okay to advocate big business butt into this law when we lament over the NRA controlling gun policy? Why shouldn't the laws in both cases be left up to the people via votes for their house and senate members? Otherwise it seems like the votes are really just controlled by those with the most money. I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 9, 2019 10:01:54 GMT -5
The film industry in Atlanta is significant.
Thereis is no way this is constitutional. Unless new interpretations prevail.
I wouldn’t live in Georgia under this rule. I won’t even drive through.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 9, 2019 10:01:55 GMT -5
The NRA is a private organization. Delta is a public business that I can choose to boycott.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 9, 2019 10:04:47 GMT -5
It isn’t buying political opinion. It’s saying we can’t get women to work in your state if they may be threatened with prison for a miscarriage or be unable to leave the state to get an abortion without legal acton against them...
And individuals are always able to exert pressure through boycot.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 9, 2019 10:05:07 GMT -5
I'm wondering about sports organizations. The NFL has done a poor job of dealing with violence against women. Taking a stand against legislation designed to control women's health and reproductive choices might be a good move. Of course, it also might irritate those in favour of such draconian legislation.
Sports tournaments provide huge amounts of revenue for Atlanta.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2019 10:14:17 GMT -5
I'm wondering about sports organizations. The NFL has done a poor job of dealing with violence against women. Taking a stand against legislation designed to control women's health and reproductive choices might be a good move. Of course, it also might irritate those in favour of such draconian legislation. Sports tournaments provide huge amounts of revenue for Atlanta. It might also irritate people who want businesses of all types to stick with what they know, their business, rather than trying to turn every business (and I think in particular, entertainment businesses) into platforms for politics. In the same way that I don't want to tune in to entertainment (sports, movies, music, etc) and see a bunch of political talk, I don't want to tune into a political show on CNN or similar network and hear their uneducated opinions on sports. Nor do I want them to say "we're not going to cover the Senate race in New York this year because we think the owner of the Knicks is a travesty". I don't want the NFL to "take a stand" on any political/legislation issue, they can barely handle football issues like CTE (disciplining their players over things like violence against women is different IMO, it's not political, it is regulating their own players and the commission of crimes or actions which hurt the team/league...that's very different than trying to get involved in legislation which doesn't actually impact their product, which is football).
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,349
|
Post by NastyWoman on May 9, 2019 10:24:38 GMT -5
While that's an amusing idea I don't think it will actually work! My best hope is that business outrage will result in the attorney general accepting the bill is unconstitutional and therefore not fighting the challenge in court. I would think the boycott would have to go way beyond Georgia though. Georgia exports a lot of their agricultural to nearby states. As the way the law is written it appears to be legal, definitely puts a strong hold on abortion availability. A major win for pro birth. I live in SC I would love to see SC adopt the same bill here. Sure and I would love to see the men making comments like this get pregnant with all that it entails. Let's see how long it would take that law to change if this were biologically feasible
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on May 9, 2019 10:26:55 GMT -5
I'm wondering about sports organizations. The NFL has done a poor job of dealing with violence against women. Taking a stand against legislation designed to control women's health and reproductive choices might be a good move. Of course, it also might irritate those in favour of such draconian legislation. Sports tournaments provide huge amounts of revenue for Atlanta. It might also irritate people who want businesses of all types to stick with what they know, their business, rather than trying to turn every business (and I think in particular, entertainment businesses) into platforms for politics. In the same way that I don't want to tune in to entertainment (sports, movies, music, etc) and see a bunch of political talk, I don't want to tune into a political show on CNN or similar network and hear their uneducated opinions on sports. Nor do I want them to say "we're not going to cover the Senate race in New York this year because we think the owner of the Knicks is a travesty". I don't want the NFL to "take a stand" on any political/legislation issue, they can barely handle football issues like CTE (disciplining their players over things like violence against women is different IMO, it's not political, it is regulating their own players and the commission of crimes or actions which hurt the team/league...that's very different than trying to get involved in legislation which doesn't actually impact their product, which is football). NFL is supported by fans. If the NFL decides to have the superbowl in Atlanta, and the majority of their fans support a boycott against Georgia due to this law (or any law) that the majority of the fans think is worth boycotting Georgia for, the NFL runs the risk of having a bunch of their fans fail to show up for the superbowl, and refuse to watch it on TV. The whole problem is fixed if the NFL decides to switch and have their superbowl in Texas, instead - fans are happy, and the NFL gets the cash.
It's always all about the money. It isn't whether the NFL as a group approves of the legislation or not, it's whether the NFL thinks this issue is important enough to their fans that a certain percentage of them refuse to come.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on May 9, 2019 10:31:36 GMT -5
Is there an exception in the law to allow the removal of an ectopic pregnacy, a blighted ovum, or an incomplete natural miscarriage?
You do realize those medical procedures are called abortions even though the fetus is not viable?
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on May 9, 2019 10:42:49 GMT -5
I'm wondering about sports organizations. The NFL has done a poor job of dealing with violence against women. Taking a stand against legislation designed to control women's health and reproductive choices might be a good move. Of course, it also might irritate those in favour of such draconian legislation. Sports tournaments provide huge amounts of revenue for Atlanta. It might also irritate people who want businesses of all types to stick with what they know, their business, rather than trying to turn every business (and I think in particular, entertainment businesses) into platforms for politics. In the same way that I don't want to tune in to entertainment (sports, movies, music, etc) and see a bunch of political talk, I don't want to tune into a political show on CNN or similar network and hear their uneducated opinions on sports. Nor do I want them to say "we're not going to cover the Senate race in New York this year because we think the owner of the Knicks is a travesty". I don't want the NFL to "take a stand" on any political/legislation issue, they can barely handle football issues like CTE (disciplining their players over things like violence against women is different IMO, it's not political, it is regulating their own players and the commission of crimes or actions which hurt the team/league...that's very different than trying to get involved in legislation which doesn't actually impact their product, which is football). I do understand what you're saying and perhaps I would agree with you if I didn't feel so strongly about this issue . The Georgia flag was redesigned to remove the confederate symbol when the NCAA threatened boycotts; the African-American population is roughly 12% in this country. The Religious Freedom bill was vetoed when both businesses and sporting events said they wouldn't open businesses here or hold tournaments. An estimated 10% of the US population are gay. Why is it different for an issue that affects 50% of the population? Incidentally, although this is technically about access to legal abortion the ramifications for women's health go way beyond the termination of unwanted pregnancies.
|
|