So it seems there wasn't a Politics Images thread before either

[hazard]

Well, not quite freely available on demand. I mean, 16 days or less late on one's period? Yes, then it's available on demand, but after that there is a 5 day waiting period so you can really think it over, and an abortion is not legal after 24 weeks as the child is viable outside the body then.

[Labster]

Yes, but compare Texas, where 14 days after a missed period, an taxi driver is criminally liable for taking dropping the woman off at the clinic, and can be sued for $10000 by literally anyone.

[hazard]

In the list of reasons the USA in general and Texas in particular are crazy:

Exhibit number however manieth, I have lost track there are so many.

[Black Aeronaut]

I'm hoping that something will happen to reverse this, because there's no way in hell that this is actually that popular here.

It's yet another case of how some ass hole wearing a MAGA hat living in the middle of bumfuck nowhere has more voting power than I do because apparently living in a rural area makes him the marginalized person.

[robkelk]

Start suing the GOP parents of women who get abortions. After all, if they hadn't given birth to her in the first place, and they hadn't done such a piss-poor job of teaching her the facts of life, she wouldn't have needed an abortion, right?

(If they're going to ignore rape, then for this discussion so will I.)

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[robkelk]

Source

[Dartz]

Oh no, the totally predictable and foreseable consequences of our actions, we never predicted or foresaw this.

[Black Aeronaut]

Shades of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, much?

[Dartz]

If it is, it's been so long since I read the books I can't remember. Either way, they brought this on themselves. Literally, this is the first time in human history where you can point at a people as a whole and rightfully declare that they brought it on themselves and deserve the consequences of their decision.

I mean, there're already talks of sending food aid to the UK -- like actually, food aid.

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

Was gonna post this in the Halloween pics thread in general, but decided to play it safe

[Black Aeronaut]

If it is, it's been so long since I read the books I can't remember. Either way, they brought this on themselves. Literally, this is the first time in human history where you can point at a people as a whole and rightfully declare that they brought it on themselves and deserve the consequences of their decision.

I mean, there're already talks of sending food aid to the UK --  like actually, food aid.

RE: The Hitchhiker's Guide, there was the part where they were sent back in time and met the people who originally colonized the Earth and screwed up the grand experiment started by the computer, Deep Thought, and the Magrathea Corporation to find the answer to life, the universe, and everything in general.

What happened?

Well, a civilization of sufficiently advanced people got rid of their entire working class by tricking them into thinking they were relocating because of some impending disaster they made up.  Why?  They didn't like their working class - they're a bunch of idiots.  (Which, really, they were.)  Unfortunately for this civilization, the joke was on them since they didn't have anyone to replace their working class, and all wound up dying of a pandemic communicated by public pay phones* not getting sterilized.  Guess the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.

This is reflected in the UK's decision to get rid of immigrants who generally take working class jobs that require little or no education... and then bitching and moaning about how there's no one to work said jobs.

* Keep in mind, Douglas Adams wrote this long before cell phones became so commonplace that even a homeless person can get a cheap prepaid phone, and supplanted the public pay phone.  If you ever find one that is 1) Intact and 2) Actually Works, take a picture and post it on social media.  With any luck, it will become a historic site! 

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Black Aeronaut]

Regarding the one about the woman being charged with manslaughter for miscarriage.

What they're leaving out was that the woman was using methamphetamine without a prescription.

Some people have been saying that she was trying to abort the pregnancy.  Granted, while crystal meth can be cheaper than an abortion, I did some research into the matter.

Thing is, abortion is still very much legal in Oklahoma.  It's just that access is a bit of an issue due to the restrictive regulations put into place by the state government.  But let's run through the whole matter and see how difficult it would have been in her case.

She lives in Cherokee County.

The nearest town with a women's clinic is in Muskogee - a 40 minute drive from the seat of the County.  They do not provide abortions, but she could have received a referral to a clinic that does offer abortion services in Tulsa.

There is a Greyhound route that runs between Muskogee and Tulsa.  It'd run you about $50 for a round-trip ticket.

One mile from the women's clinic in Tulsa is an inexpensive motel that offers singles for about $40/night.

As for the abortion services?  The clinic offers fully inclusive packages that include follow ups.  They cost $625 each.  One package is the abortion drug.  The other is the surgical procedure.

Also, they offer payment plans as well as access to financial aid programs.

While it would have been an inconvenience, for the amount of money she spent on crystal meth?  She probably could have had this done all nice and tidy, legally speaking.

That is, if she was actually trying to abort the pregnancy and wasn't actually a meth addict.  But from the tone of the article, it doesn't really seem that way.

(Others have been trying to claim that it was a urinary tract infection that caused the miscarriage... which is possible.  However, they're completely disregarding the fact that UTIs are a common side effect of methamphetamine abuse.  It's like saying that someone died of "just pneumonia" and completely leave out the fact that they had AIDs.)

As for the manslaughter charge, I did a bit of research on that as well.  Oklahoma state law protects women from prosecution if they do something that causes their own miscarriage...

...However, that protection ends when the act that causes the miscarriage is illegal in and of itself.  Like possessing a Schedule II Controlled Substance without a prescription or supervision of a properly trained and licensed medical professional.

Granted, actually using drugs is a lot more ambiguous under Oklahoma law.  But charges there mostly pertain to the outcome - such as driving under the influence, for example.

Lastly, by my reckoning, they're being gentle with her.

How?

Well, she has meth in her system.  That's more than enough probable cause for the prosecutor to get search warrants for wherever she lives and any vehicles she drives.  And they would likely have found something.  Oklahoma is one of the toughest states in the USA on drugs, and even trace amounts will get you a possession charge.

Penalties for possession of methamphetamine without a prescription? 4 to 20 years in prison, and a $10,000 fine.

Also, that would have been a SECOND felony charge in addition to the manslaughter charge.  Not only is Oklahoma a Three Strikes state, they also make no distinction of "degrees" of felonies and misdemeanors.  Over there, a felony is a felony, period.

They could have utterly ruined her life with incredible ease.  Instead, they went for just four years in prison for manslaughter (which, BTW, does not have a fine as part of the penalty in Oklahoma).

With all of this taken into consideration?  Near as I can figure, she's more likely than not dealing with a drug addiction and they want her to have a shot at rehabilitation.

And that would be why the major media outlets haven't been running the story.  Kinda wish they had if only for the sake of rumor control.

[Norgarth]

thanks for doing the research BA. I must admit I had simply assumed it was a situation like what the nutjobs in Texas are arguing for

[Black Aeronaut]

No problem, Norgarth.  Thing is, I already had this argument over on r/nottheonion on the same damn thing.  People were jumping down my throat for pointing out that the woman was on methamphetamine (thus making the whole article a lot less onion-y sounding) like as if she had a justifiable reason for it.  Which is not very likely in this case.  (Not that I think it makes the situation any better, just that they're attacking the wrong people.)

Another one I'd like to pick on is the one about Childcare.

I don't like it when people act like as if the child care industry is some sort of cash grab just because there's some bad apples in the bunch.

The fact of the matter is: You think raising a child is expensive?  What makes you think foisting your kids off to someone else part-time is gonna be any less expensive?

But, you don't have to take my word for it.  Here's an article by an insurance company that breaks down the costs.  It's mainly targeted at people who want to get into the industry, so there's not much bullshitting going on here.

https://www.nextinsurance.com/blog/how-m...n-daycare/

Contrast to this CSNBC article about the average cost (to parents) of child care in the USA.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/19/what-par...-2021.html

$8,335 yearly is about $695 monthly.

A care center, according to the insurance company's article, will spend on average about $525/month/child.

So, that's about $170/child/month of profit.  Which means our theoretical care center, which cares for six children in accordance to the first article, is making a hair over $1,000/month.

Keep in mind, this is NOT what the owner of the operation makes, especially if it's not an incorporated operation.  The owner's paycheck is part of the payroll and is thus already being deducted.  This is the money that the care center must bank on going forward.  Remember that "Profit" does not really mean money in the pockets of the owner.  That's only for incorporated businesses who need to pay dividends to share holders out of their profits.

And take it from someone who's been there.  Fucked up shit happens all the goddamned time.  And more often than not, in today's world?  The only thing that is going to bail you out without your situation degrading even further is having more money than you know what to do with.  Because once you factor in the cost of the things you need to fix whatever went wrong combined with the time you have to take off from your paying job in order to make it happen?  Shit gets expensive, god-awfully fast.

$1000 per month... That's barely cutting it, and only if there are no "incidents" that hurt your business.  Especially if you're trying to grow your business.

[Black Aeronaut]

This one is also something that sticks in my craw, but only because it's far too true.

Real Life Example from Where I Live.

There was a four-bedroom home up for rent not far from where I live.  The neighborhood it's in is not the swankiest by any stretch.  It's very plain, hum-drum, suburbia.  The house itself is at least 40, if not 50 years old, maybe even older.  It has a two-car garage, a front yard, and a fenced back yard, though the back yard is up against a concrete-paved thoroughfare and near one of the local school district's bus depots.  Though the speed limit is 35 MPH on this road, people often blast through there at 45 MPH, even though there are TWO schools right there, and on the same block, too.

Thing is?  The landlord wants $1500 a month.

If I had the credit and money for the down payment for it, I could *buy* a property just like this, and pay less than that for the mortgage payments.

But really, how much money would I have to make in order to afford living there?

Let's run the numbers.

The rule of thumb here, whether you're renting or paying off a mortgage, is that your housing expenses should not exceed one-third of your monthly take home pay.  And it's a pretty good rule at that.

So, $1500 x 3 = $4500

But let's not forget about taxes.  After all, this is take-home pay we're talking about, not gross pay.

Say about 30% for all taxes.  30% of $4500 is $1350, which brings our required monthly gross pay to $5850.

Now.  Hourly wage.

I'm gonna be realistic here and say that our employer only lets us work 30-hours a week, because fuck paying out for full-time benefits.

30-hours a week with about four weeks to a month gives us 120-hours a month.

Which means that in order to live in a place that charges $1500/month for rent without living beyond my means (read: just barely scraping by)....

$48.75 an hour.

How many jobs pays that kind of wage?

In order to realistically live in a place like that, I'd have to be doing something like working as an engineer for an oil company... or have a domestic partner who is also in the work force.  Thing is, both of us would have to be making more than the $15/hour minimum wage everyone else is clamoring for.

As for me right now?  With tips factored in, I'm at-best making about $16/hour on average.  At.  Best.

Which means, at best, I can afford a monthly rent of about $500/month.

How many places do you know of that charge *only* that much for rent?  Sure, they're out there.  But they're in damn short supply.

So yeah.  Something has to be done - both with housing costs *and* wages.

[hazard]

*snip*

Actually, a correction.

If you need a net income of $4500 per month and 30% of your income needs to be paid as taxes your taxes aren't 30% of 4500. Taxes aren't something you pay on top of your net income.

Rather, the sum of 70% of your gross income must be at least $4500, so you need to divide your net income by 0.7 because you pay taxes from your gross income.

According to my calculator that means a monthly gross income of $6 430, rounding to the nearest 10, and if you work 120 hours a month that means a total minimum hourly wage of $53.85.

Which means that yes, the situation is even worse than you thought.

[Inquisitive Raven]

Also, the last time I looked (i.e. when I actually worked for a mortgage company), mortgage lenders calculated the maximum acceptable payment based on the gross income, not the net although I think it was something like 28% (which might translate to something close to 33% of net income but that's impossible to calculate without knowing how much is being subtracted to calculate the net) of the monthly gross for the mortgage payment and 36% of the monthly gross for the total debt which includes the mortgage payment and things like student loans, credit cards, and car payments. Also, if you can't cough up twenty percent of the sales price as a downpayment, they make you take out insurance on the mortgage itself. If you get a VA or FHA loan, the Federal government guarantees the loan; otherwise, you have to get private mortgage insurance which adds to your monthly payment.

[Norgarth]