Why does the "my body, my choice" slogan only seem to apply to abortion; but not to ultimate issue of who owns one's body - the right to choose whether or not to live or to die?

For example, if abortion was de jure legal, but it was considered a criminal offence to supply any kind of abortifacient or conduct surgery to abort; this would not be considered to be in keeping with a respect for a woman's bodily autonomy. However, when it comes to the issue of su*cide, everyone points to the fact that it's not physically impossible to end one's own life as a way to demonstrate that "anyone can kill themselves"; whilst ignoring all of the adverse outcomes that might result from not having a legal avenue to access a method that is optimised to the desired outcome.

I will post my own thoughts in the comments, as per the rules.

And now for something not related to the US election.

I stumbled upon an article in The Guardian today and I'm torn on this.

My first thought was of course they should be. Ultra processed foods are extremely unhealthy, put a strain on medical resources, and drive up costs. But as I thought about it I realized that the would mostly affect people who are already struggling with food availability, food cost, or both.

Ultra processed foods are objectively a public health issue globally, but I don't know what the solution would be so I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

Here is a link to the article:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/sep/20/tax-instant-noodles-tougher-action-ultra-processed-food-upf-global-health-crisis-obesity-diabetes-tobacco

The last 48 hours of the news cycle have been chaotic. The House spent months negotiating a Continuing Resolution bill to fund the government. In a short period, Musk fired out more than 70 Tweets on X, demanding the bill not be passed. Some hours later, President-elect Trump had his press relations people state his support for killing the bill. Speaker Johnson then announced that the bill would not be presented for a vote.

24 hrs. later, the Republicans presented a new, and abbreviated bill for a vote. The new bill contained a provision for raising the debt ceiling, which had not been in the original bill. The new bill was endorsed by President-elect Trump. The new bill failed to pass, with 38 Republicans in the House voting against it (likely because of the provision regarding the debt ceiling).

Now Elon Musk is publicly advocating for a government shutdown, a move that could harm President-elect Trump's political fortunes and undermine Republican standing.

How much political capital does Musk really have, and how long will he maintain influence over Congressional Republicans and the President-elect?

As mentioned, the infrastructure bill is heading to Biden’s desk without a deal on the Build Back Better reconciliation bill. Democrats seemed to have a deal to pass these two in tandem to assuage concerns over mistrust among factions in the party. Is the BBB dead in the water now that moderates like Manchin and Sinema have free reign to vote against reconciliation? Manchin has expressed renewed issues with the new version of the House BBB bill and could very well kill it entirely. Given the immense challenges of bridging moderate and progressive views on the legislation, what is the future of both the bill and Democratic legislation on these topics?

Trump is slated to send Jeff Sessions to announce the end of DACA to the press, effectively punting the issue to the Congress. What are the implications of this? Congress has struggled on immigration reform of any kind of many years and now they've been given a six month window.

What is likely to happen?

From C-Span: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) unveiled legislation to create the Commission on Presidential Capacity. Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Raskin explained Congress' role designated in the 25th Amendment and clarified the commission is for future presidents."

What are Pelosi's and the Democrats' political motivations for proposing this legislation? Is there a possibility that it could backfire on them in the event of a Democratic presidency and a Republican congress?

The Nordic Model approach to prostitution, originating from Sweden, was originally meant to protect sex workers by criminalising the purchase of sexual services and ultimately eradicating demand. Deeming prostitution as inherently connected to exploitation and violence, the Nordic Model was built on a radical feminist argument of sex inequality, not moral prudishness. It does not criminalise sex workers de jure, but some critics argue it does in reality. Reports from non-governmental organisations suggest that the Nordic Model increased sex workers’ vulnerability to violence due to less trust in police and customers’ fear to get caught.

Now, this is a very interesting topic for me as I have just written a paper on the subject myself. Here in the UK (except Northern Ireland) unorganised prostitution is legal but unregulated. This can be considered the abolitionist approach to prostitution. Abolitionism wants to get rid of prostitution but unlike prohibitionism, doesn’t outright ban it.

The Netherlands on the other hand fully regulates prostitution as a legal form of labour. Reports from the country show that despite the government’s liberal stance, a lot of sex work still happens unlicensed and therefore illegally. It has also been found that there’s still a high threshold for prostitutes to go to the police after falling victim to violence by clients, again due to fears of legal implications (licence loss, etc.).

The five main approaches, legalisation, decriminalisation, abolitionism, neo-abolitionism (Nordic Model), and prohibitionism, all have different goals. Prohibitionism, abolitionism and the Nordic Model have in common that they are opposed to prostitution in one way or another and want to get rid of it. The Nordic Model and the legalisation/decriminalisation approach have in common that they actively want to protect the sex worker.

However, both of the latter seem to have their issues (lack of trust in police, de facto criminalisation, etc.). That leaves me wondering which of these, if implemented correctly, would be capable of tackling the issues they claim to address (or would you say they already do, contrary to the claims in the mentioned reports?).

Was the Nordic Model a ‘failed experiment’? Is legalisation the only way to effectively protect sex workers from violence and tackle trafficking? Or is it quite the opposite?

I recently came across an article that supported "supersizing" the House of Representatives by increasing the number of Representatives from 435 to 1,500. The author argued population growth in the United States has outstripped Congressional representation (the House has not been expanded since the 1920's) and that more Representatives would represent fewer constituents and be able to better address their needs. The author believes that "supersizing" will not solve all of America's political issues but may help.

Some questions that I had:

• 1,500 Congresspeople would most likely not be able to psychically conduct their day to day business in the current Capitol building. The author claims points to teleworking today and says that can solve the problem. What issues would arise from a partially remote working Congress? Could the Capitol building be expanded?

• The creation of new districts would likely favor heavily populated and urban areas. What kind of resistance could an expansion see from Republicans, who draw a large amount of power from rural areas?

• What are some unforeseen benefits or challenges than an House expansion would have that you have not seen mentioned?

H.R. 2352 would reinstating previous contribution limits to super PACs. This was prompted by the fact that 1% of donors provide over 96% of the donations to these PACs. Personally, I think it is pretty cut and dry that mega-donors should not be having as much influence on U.S elections as they currently do. If you do not support this legislation, why?

The Senate has finally passed the IRA and it will soon become law pending House passage. The Democrats say it reduces inflation by paying $300bn+ towards the deficit, but don’t elaborate further. Will this bill actually make meaningful progress towards inflation?

I keep coming back to one weirdly under-discussed line in the 25th Amendment.
Section 4 says the Vice President can act with a majority of the Cabinet “or of such other body as Congress may by law provide” to declare that a president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office.
That “other body” has basically never been tested.
So here’s the question: why has Congress never seriously explored creating one?
Not “a panel that removes a president because people don’t like him.” That would obviously be dangerous. I mean an actual statutory body with strict standards, transparency requirements, medical/legal expertise, bipartisan appointment rules, and a very high threshold.
Because right now, if a president starts behaving erratically, making serious factual mistakes, abusing presidential influence, or showing signs that raise legitimate questions about whether they can safely perform the job, the practical mechanism depends heavily on the same Cabinet members whose careers may depend on that president.
That seems like a structural weakness.
And before anyone says “that’s what impeachment is for” — impeachment deals with misconduct. Section 4 exists for inability. They are deliberately different constitutional mechanisms.
The amendment itself seems to anticipate that the Cabinet might not always be the appropriate institution to make that determination, which is presumably why Congress was explicitly given the power to create an alternative body.
I’m not even arguing that such a body should remove Trump, Biden, or anyone else.
I’m asking a more basic question:
Why do we have an unused constitutional safety mechanism sitting in plain sight, and why has Congress never seriously built the institution the amendment explicitly allows it to build?

And more importantly: what would a genuinely abuse-resistant version of that institution actually look like?
Because if the answer is simply “we trust the Cabinet to handle it,” history should probably have taught us by now that designing constitutional safeguards around people voluntarily acting against their own political interests is not much of a safeguard.

Florida recently banned 7-hydroxymitragynine (7OH), a compound derived from kratom, by placing it into Schedule I under state law.

Supporters of the ban argue it's necessary to protect public health and prevent youth access. Critics argue the state skipped over regulatory options like age restrictions, mandatory product testing, licensing requirements and labeling standards in favor of prohibition.

More broadly, this seems like a recurring policy question. When governments are faced with a new consumer product that raises legitimate safety concerns, is prohibition the right first step or should regulation generally come first?

We've seen similar debates with cannabis, nicotine vaping products, hemp derived cannabinoids and other emerging products. Some argue bans reduce harm. Others argue they push consumers toward unregulated markets while making research and oversight more difficult.

From a public policy perspective, what factors should determine when a state chooses regulation versus prohibition? Did Florida make the right call here or would a regulated framework have been a better approach?

I'm legitimately curious about how to budget for this and how the American populace would react. What tax increases and budget cuts would we need to make? How would people feel? What externalities would these changes generate?

I’m not going to pretend to be an expert in law, but this is a tricky time we’re living in. Would a new case similar to Roe v Wade have to overturn the Dobbs decision? Is it going to take decades before reproductive freedom returns to being a human right?

I have one doubt, and I would like to hear the opinion from people who defend that we should tax the Rich.

So a millionaire is part of the Rich club, millionaires should pay more taxes to finance the welfare state.

But how to distinguish millionaires from actually millionaires, for example a old middle class couple that bought their house in a much more friendly era on a zone that evolved to become a noble zone can now be easy worth millions.

That middle class couple in the end of their career so in theory they are in a high point of their salary, with soon they will have access to their pension.

So their have a network of a millionaire, mainly because of their property.

Should they pay more taxes ?

My view is that, they are a working class couple, that live their whole life in the middle class spectrum and shouldn't be punishment by that.

But at the same time what should the parameters to a establish a millionaire so we can tax them ?

Before the next Congress is sworn in, the current one can pass a reconciliation bill in fiscal year 2022 (between 10/1/21 through 9/30/22) and another in fiscal year 2023 (between 10/1/22 through 12/31/22).¹

Let's assume filibuster reform won't happen, and legislators are creative when crafting these reconciliation bills to meet the Byrd Rule and whatnot.

What issues should Democrats focus on including in the next two reconciliations bills to best make use of their majority?

Over the past 40 years income inequality in America has become worse and worse. Many people are calling for increased taxation on the rich but that is only half the story. What I find most important is what is done with that money. What can the government do to most effectively address income inequality?

When I look at the highest spending of average americans, I think of healthcare, and rent/mortgages. One of these could be address with M4A. But the other two are a little less obvious. I've seen proposals to raise the minimum wage to $15 and also rent control. Yet the two areas that have implemented these, New York and California remain to be locations with some of the highest income inequalities in America. Have these proven to be viable policies that effective move income inequality in the right direction? Even with rent control, cities with the highest income inequality also have the highest rates for increasing home prices, including San Fran, DC, Boston, and Miami.

Are there other policies that can address these issues? Are there other issues that need to be addressed beyond house payments and healthcare? Finally, what would be the most politically safe way to accomplish this goal? Taxation of the rich is extremely popular and increasing minimum wage is also popular. The major program that government could use money gained from increased taxes would be medicare expansion which is already a divisive issue.

Edit: some of the most direct ways to redistribute wealth would be either UBI or negative tax rates for the lowest tax brackets

This upcoming case) will determine whether wetlands are under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. If the Court decides that wetlands are navigable waters, that is that. But if not, then what happens? Could a separate bill dedicated specifically to wetlands go through Congress and thus protect wetlands, like a Clean Wetlands Act? It would be separate from the Clean Water Act. Are wetlands a lost cause until the Court can find something else that allows protection?

Were his veto to be overridden it would be the first of his tenure, and it could potentially damage him politically. Could Congress override the veto? Should they? What are the potential implications of Obama's first veto override?

Marco Rubio and Ann Wagner of Florida are introducing the Economic Security for New Parents Act which would allow employees to receive up to two months of paid leave now by delaying their future Social Security benefits by three to six months. This appears to be the conservative alternative to other paid leave programs being put forward.

What are this bills chances in Congress? Will it be able to gain Democratic support? Republican support?

If so, how could this be legislated without running afoul of (if we're talking the US) the First Amendment? How would it be enforced?

Our adversaries, particularly Russia, have been running such operations with impunity. It's just too easy for them, and I suspect it's far more widespread and effective than we realize.

I'm no infosec expert or constitutional lawyer, obviously. But here's my sketch of an idea. If you are engaging in this activity for a paycheck, or are profiting as a contractor of a foreign state (however indirectly), you are committing fraud. You're not Jim Bob Crackins the boomer-aged rancher from Eaglescreech, Missouri. You're some college kid in St. Petersburg, in the employ of the Russian state.

It would remain legal for a 'volunteer' to do this as a weird hobby, but if it's in exchange for renumeration of some kind, it's fraud.

Is that a viable approach, or would it have to be done differently? Is it enough of a problem for the next congress or administration to expend political capital on? How much pushback would there be, and where would it be coming from? And finally, how would we go after these guys?

What does this mean for the ACA? How will the House view this bill? Is this bill dead on arrival or will it now pass? How will Trump react?

According to Ballotpedia, earmarks are:

congressional provisions directing funds to be spent on specific projects (or directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees)

In 2011, Republicans and some Democrats (including President Obama) pushed for a ban of earmark spending in Congress and were successful. Earmarks are effectively banned to this day. Some Democrats, such as House Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer, are now making a push to bring back earmarks.

More context on the arguments for and against earmarks from Ballotpedia:

Critics [of earmarks] argue that the ability to earmark federal funds should not be part of the legislative appropriations process. These same critics argue that tax money should be applied by federal agencies according to objective findings of need and carefully constructed requests, rather than being earmarked arbitrarily by elected officials.[3]

Supporters of earmarks, however, feel that elected officials are better able to prioritize funding needs in their own districts and states. They believe it is more democratic for these officials to make discreet funding decisions than have these decisions made by unelected civil servants. Proponents say earmarks are good for consumers and encourage bipartisanship in Congress.[4]

Should earmark spending be brought back? Is the benefit of facilitating bi-partisan legislation worth the cost of potentially frivolous spending at the direction of legislators who want federal cash to flow to their districts?

According to The Hill, Rep. Massie's bill calls for the Department of Education to be terminated on December 31, 2018 and has been co-signed by seven other House Republicans, including prominent figures like Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah) and Rep. Justin Amash (Michigan).

In a statement, Massie argued that "Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not be in charge of our children's intellectual and moral development. States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students."

Do you agree with Massie's position that the Department of Education is part of our country's education problem, not the solution?

Would a more localized approach work to resolve the United States' education issues?

A source on the racial wealth gap:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/economic-divide-black-households/

Furthermore, if we look at the African diaspora across the world in general:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_diaspora#Populations_and_estimated_distribution

and cross reference it with The World Bank/U.N’s chart on wealth disparities in different global regions:

• https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2021/03/The-global-inc-distribution-190-10-30-1536x959.png

we can see that the overwhelming vast majority of black people either live in Africa where 95%+ of the population lives on less than the equivalent to $10 a day and 85% live on less than $5.50 a day (https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/85-africans-live-less-550-day) or the Caribbean where 70% of people are food insecure (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-30/hunger-in-latin-america-hit-20-year-high-last-year-amid-pandemic), with North America being the only other region where black people make up 10% or more of the overall population. As such, seeing as North America is by far the most prosperous out of all the regions where black people primarily live, to what extent does it have a unique moral burden to create a better life for its black residents and generally serve as a beacon of hope for black people across the world?