This is legit the compromise. Before we had ankle monitors, they'd just go to jail.

So those are his options: ankle monitor or jail.

IIRC, it was a project a couple of students made for a college class. No idea how they still fund it.

Edit: Found an NPR article about it from 2011 (good lord it's been 10 years). It was a demonstration project for Twilio, not a college. I guess they just decided to keep it going?

https://www.npr.org/2011/12/21/144069758/callin-oates-the-hotline-you-dont-need-but-might-call-anyway

Also, there's a twitter account: https://twitter.com/CallinOates

They posted that on 8/16 over 2,600 people called in.

This world presumably be true in other countries too.

From 2019: https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1128735398157594626?lang=en

You can find this stuff easily by searching the guys name and the first 10 or so words in quotes.

who supported small business owners and car dealers

You know that he owns a car dealership right? You're bragging about how he used his position of power to help himself.

You mean to tell me that the congressman whose only legislative accomplishment in 10 years has been to lower taxes on car dealerships that he owns used his position of power for his own self benefit?

I'm shocked I tell you.

for using the site to obtain personally identifying information.

$10 says these same people said that asking about vaccine status violated their HIPAA rights.

There's a difference between a publicly owned club as in owned by a publicly traded company and a publicly owned club as in owned by a government.

One gets half the country foaming at the mouth about communism.

They posted this publicly on Facebook.

Idk if anyone actually believes this. The site was created as an example of misinformation.

Don't forget to be on the lookout for dihydrogen monoxide!

https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Insulting them won't change minds. Engaging with them and making them think deeply about what they want the law to be will though.

or federal government.

If the GOP gains control of the House, Senate, and White House like they had in 2016, they would jump at the chance to pass laws like this for the entire US.

This isn't a bad faith argument.

If you're going to implement a law that bans abortion and you believe that there should be exceptions, the law needs to spell out what those exceptions are, no matter how rare. If you don't create those exceptions, women will die because they can't get an abortion because of your law; I know you don't want that to happen. And I genuinely want to learn more about how these exceptions would work under your law.

You're right that it is very rare to have a condition that is 100% going to end in a woman's death unless the pregnancy is terminated. But is this the only exception for the life of the mother that your law would allow for? What about a condition that kills the mother 90% of the time? Does the zc_special Pro-Life Act allow her to have a safe, legal abortion as well? What about an 80% chance of death? 75%? 50%? How likely does death have to be for it to count as endangering the life of the mother under your law?

Edit: Also, what's the procedure for women covered under the exception to get an abortion? Does she need to get approval from the government first? If so, what does that look like? Does a bureaucrat in DC have to review the woman's medical records before approval? Or do you want the doctor to have the ability to perform the procedure right away?

So honestly, no, I really don’t.

Not until the GOP gains control over your state or federal government.

I understand that you view a fetus as a person. I'm not going to argue with that. For this conversation, let's proceed with that as a given.

I'm assuming that you value women's lives just as much as the fetus' life, correct? I don't presume that you want women to die. I'll also presume that you recognize that pregnancy is one of the most dangerous times in a woman's life.

Now let's talk about your ideal pro-life law: the zc-special Pro-Life Act. Think about how you want the law with your name on it impacting the lives of your fellow citizens. I assume it would ban abortion so that it can save the lives of as many babies as possible. Given the above, I assume zc-special Pro-Life Act includes an exemption for the life of the mother, yes?

But what does that exemption look like in practice? Does the woman have to be actively dying to legally have an abortion under your law? What if her doctor finds a condition that will absolutely kill her, but not for a few weeks? Does your law give her a legal right to an abortion before this condition nearly kills her?

They really pwned the shit out of... well, themseves.

In the movie Old School, Wil Ferrels character was named Frank and his nickname was Frank the Tank.

What is this from?

That is what they believe, but there's no reliable way to test exactly when conception happened. It can take days, or weeks for sperm to fertilize the egg. This doesn't happen in the uterus though, so the fertilized egg takes more time to attach to the uteran wall.

Even if you only had sex once, you don't know exactly when conception happened.

Imagine if Massachusetts passed a law that made owning a gun illegal. But the only enforcement is that a random citizen can sue the offender for $10,000. Imagine the right-wing freakout.

I've always heard it called the crosstown double header.

Tell me how to test the coin example. Unless and until you show basic understanding of how the statistical tests used in clinical trials are performed, you're completely inept in this field and we're done here.

too small a sample on one hand, 1 billion plus people too large of one on the other

Again... the entire population of India is not in a randomized controlled double-blind study. I doubt that the entire population of India is taking ivermectin. I don't know what you don't get about that. Edit: Actually, I do get it. You just don't know how to check whether something works or if the results are the result of random chance. The coin example a super easy one. I'm almost certain you have no idea how to go about performing that test. If you did, you wouldn't be pointing at the entire population of India as if that would prove anything.

It seems you're unable to understand any nuance. It's like you think that either someone thinks today that ivermectin is an effective treatment or they're certain that it doesn't work at all. I don't know how many times I have to say that we simply don't know if it does or not. If clinical trials with a sufficient sample size conducted properly show that it works, that'd be great! It would be another tool we could use to save lives. Until then though, we can't say that it works. And since we don't know it works, we shouldn't encourage its use for the same reasons that we don't encourage heart burn medicine as a COVID treatment. By your logic, Nexium could be an effective treatment for COVID so it must be right? I reject ivermectin as a treatment right now for the same reason I reject Nexium as a treatment: neither have been proven to actually be effective in treating COVID. If/when that changes, so will my opinion on ivermectin as a treatment for COVID.

And LOL this vaccine isn’t a treatment

Right, it's preventative. But people are using ivermectin to prevent COVID infections as a substitute of getting the vaccine. We don't know if it prevents infection and people opting for an unproven drug over a safe, proven vaccine is dangerous both to them and their communities.

You seem to have tunnel vision on the possibility that it works, but are completely discounting the very real possibility that it doesn't.

But seriously, how would you test if the coin is fair? If you can't perform that simple statistical test, you have no idea how to tell if ivermectin works against COVID.

Is the country of India a big enough sample size for you, or are they going to not count?

This isn't how you prove a drug works though. You need a randomized control trial to do that. As of today, the only studies about ivermectin as a treatment for COVID have been small samples, poorly controlled, badly randomized or all three.

And off label use of drugs is nothing new...an especially common example is anyone using Benadryl as a sleep aid

Benadryl (Diphenhydramine) is approved by the FDA as a sleep aid. Look, I don't know where you're getting these talking points, but they're making you look like an idiot. You should stop listening to whatever source is feeding you this stuff.

Here's an analogy of what's happening. We're debating over whether a coin is fair or not. We have the following data:

THTHHHTHHT

I'm saying that the data doesn't allow us to tell if the coin is fair or not and we need more coin flips to tell. You're ADAMANT that it's an unfair coin. Something tells me that you don't know how to test whether this is a fair coin or not. Which, if you can't do that you definitely don't know how to tell if studies truly show a drug works, if they're flawed, or if we just need more data to make a conclusion.

And what’s REALLY weird is how crazy you all got against it

Did you not read my comment? I sad "If clinical trials show that it works, I'll gladly update my opinion about it." I've only said that we don't have proof that it works as a COVID treatment. That we need better studies. Until we know it works, it's really stupid to encourage it's use as a COVID treatment because people will replace treatments that we know work (i.e. vaccines, monoclonal antibodies) with something that might not work. They'll also resort to taking products not intended for human consumption, take way too much and overdose.