*promote the current state of women's health care.

I call this a breakthrough in mental health

Adding video to channels (Health) - requested by ant.

*health

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/04/us/biden-resting-after-surgery-for-second-brain-aneurysm.html

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20201028/a-closer-look-at-joe-bidens-health

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10711779/Jill-Biden-screamed-medics-Joe-ill-suffering-brain-aneurism.html

Why must every word you write be an intentional bold faced lie?

Bob…can you list the three branches of government ?

Democrats control 1 branch, Republicans (including Senema and Manchin) control the other 2 (one outright, one by overused veto power and filibuster) and they block any Democratic legislation out of spite whether or not it’s good for the country, just to deny Democrats any “wins”. It takes a >60/40 majority for Democrats to get anything passed because Republicans do not want anything to be bipartisan…voting WITH democrats is a career ender, no matter what the bill is.

Democrats have tried dozens of times to make improvements, like background checks for EVERY gun sale, clip size limits, red flag laws, trying to raise the purchase age to 21, temporary seizure if someone gets a restraining order against you, and much more….Republicans blocked every single effort because they need NRA money and support.

Republicans made it legal for any criminal or nut job to not only buy as many guns and ammunition as they wish, but also to concealed carry them anywhere except where Republicans gather (like the NRA convention, once again held days after a mass shooting, or the capitol building).

They voted against giving babies formula, they voted against working to release political prisoners, they voted against supporting Ukraine, they voted against removing gun registration loopholes, mental health gun laws, clip size limits, etc., they voted against investigating Jan 6, Republicans are so anti Democrat they went full anti democracy.

Here’s your negative attention, since I know that’s what you really want. I’ll keep it light in honor of your father, unless you don’t, and just say you are a total liar. I would say consummate liar, but you’re really just awful at it and just make yourself look so incredibly stupid and dishonest at every opportunity.

You’ve never changed a single mind with your nonsensical lies.

In Texas, a violent criminal record is no roadblock, anyone can buy and concealed carry a gun (or several) no matter their criminal record or mental health status thanks to Gov. Abbot.

I read that there was at least one mother that entered the school and came back out with her children.

If she couldn't save them she was willing to die with them.

Maybe it's time for mental health checks for politicians.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asbestos (pronounced: /æsˈbɛstɒs/ or /æsˈbɛstəs/) is a naturally occurring fibrous silicate mineral. There are six types, all of which are composed of long and thin fibrous crystals, each fibre being composed of many microscopic "fibrils" that can be released into the atmosphere by abrasion and other processes. Inhalation of asbestos fibres can lead to various dangerous lung conditions, including mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer, so it is now notorious as a serious health and safety hazard.

You cruel bastard! That would be like rubbing your junk on a cactus!

So, if Republicans are pro life, why are you so pro instruments of death? Meaning guns, specifically handguns and military anti personnel rifles both designed to kill people.
Same for the death penalty, Republicans love death.
Why do Republicans support laws that allow them to murder if they “feel threatened”?
Sure sounds pro death to me.

Seems those tools of death and destruction are the number one love of Republicans.
We’ve been over how your party is the clear winner of the debauchery award, you haven’t been able to produce a single example of democrats, which would be a no brainer if your claim were correct….and having no brain, that’s exactly what you need.

Remember, republicans said the elderly would rather be killed by their irresponsibility if it meant they didn’t have to wear masks or get a shot. Another pro death platform from Republicans.

I guess you don’t recall the Republican position, “my body my choice. Keep the government out of my body.” Or are you admitting you never meant it?

That included when choosing to not follow public health recommendations meant you might be responsible for the death of hundreds or even thousands of others. Funny how that’s good enough when avoiding the tiny inconvenience of a shot (like you’re all little crybabies deathly afraid of a short needle) but not important enough for women to avoid the “inconvenience” (by which I mean the extreme mental, physical, and financial costs) of bearing and raising unwanted children, even those of child rapists and incestuous fathers/brothers/uncles.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

...not to mention a major cause of the state of its Health Care is due to a myriad of the US's embargo/sanctions of medical supplies to Cuba, despite some aids (to be truly Fair & Balance).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

If you are talking policies that govern individuals, average is meaningless, you need to include the outliers. What I really said was, on average it’s somewhat true a bit more than half the time….with many exceptions, so incredibly far from a rule…far from “I can agree”.

You said “ Are you saying you do not believe that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)?”.
I pointed to one instance where (I assume) chromosomal males do not have an advantage over a chromosomal female in an athletic field….just an example of why I don’t believe it’s always true that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)..one you can’t contradict.

People are never equally gifted or talented, not even with themselves yesterday or tomorrow. I find the premise faulty.

Appears to, so far, in most but not all categories.
In many, the difference is minimal and an exceptional female will surpass males one day in most. Top ranked Kenyan woman already routinely beat top ranked non Kenyan males in long distance running, for one example.

I won’t extrapolate from a temporary skewed position, it leads to ridiculous conclusions….so I won’t be able to agree.
I can agree people believe that.

It’s not just sexual biology. It has nothing to do with genitals. It’s hormones, dna, rna, mental toughness, upbringing, training, health, environment, opportunity, etc. if someone born a woman wants to compete with men, and your position is correct, what’s the harm? If a trans woman, born male but never going through male puberty or taking estrogen and hormone blockers to reverse the effects wants to compete against women, what proof do you have to show any advantage? Two athletes excelling? Out of how many?

Now how expert are you in this field? Expert enough to define the exact point where each person has an advantage vs a disadvantage? I doubt it. But you think it’s fine to deny them the right to participate based on your ignorant assumptions. Do you accept such ignorant, biased assumptions to determine what you may do, how much you may participate in public events? I doubt you would accept it for a second. Think about that.

You want to equate them to non trans people while trying to prove how they’re so different. Pick a lane please.

No matter what your opinion, denying a citizen a chance to compete in public sports is totally unAmerican. I notice how you ignore that, as if to concede it under your breath. It doesn’t go unnoticed that you can’t address that. It IS the point.

Edit : as to the olympics, they have allowed trans gender athletes since 2004. If trans women are really men, why haven’t those records become equal between men and women?