#Healthcare projects

[mysharona1987]

[whatareyoureallyafraidof]

These MAGA fucks won't be happy until we return to a time when only straight, white, male, Christian, land-owners could vote! Women, wake up! They won't stop at taking away your right to make decisions about your own body. They want to take away your right to vote! What will be next?

[my-midlife-crisis]

[drjasvantmodi]

Dr. Jasvant Modi - A Retired Gastroenterologist

Born in Godhra, India in 1951, Dr. Jasvant Modi attended B.J. Medical College to earn his medical degree. Upon graduating, he continued his training with a gastroenterology residency in Chicago, Illinois. After immigrating to the United States in 1975, he has remained committed to the medical field.

[razorroy]

Vote "No" This November

Keep your freedoms!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ryan Adamczeski at The Advocate:

Donald Trump claims he has "nothing to do" with Project 2025, but he has a playbook of his own that would be devastating for LGBTQ+ Americans and other marginalized communities. The former president's reelection website features a section entitled Agenda 47, which hosts dozens of videos of Trump outlining his policies for if he returns to office. Several policies threaten the LGBTQ+ community, spanning across education, health care, and the military. In one video titled "President Trump's Plan to Protect Children From Left-Wing Gender Insanity," Trump promised to outlaw gender-affirming care for minors at the federal level, and “cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age.” He also promised to ban transgender athletes from competing on teams that match their gender identity.

Trump stated that he "will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the United States government are male and female — and they are assigned at birth.” He then claimed that being transgender was "invented" by the "radical left," though he did not use the term "transgender" once throughout Agenda 47. “No serious country should be telling its children that they were born with the wrong gender — a concept that was never heard of in all of human history — nobody’s ever heard of this, what’s happening today," Trump rambled. "It was all when the radical left invented it just a few years ago.”

[...] As for public education, Trump vowed to "cut federal funding for any school or program pushing critical race theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children." He also promised to "create a new credentialing body to certify teachers who embrace patriotic values."

While Donald Trump may claim to have “nothing to do” with Project 2025, it and Agenda 47 are practically like-for-like in many key policy areas. #Agenda47 #Project2025

[sher-ee]

[benjaminallhope-fulltimemind]

Don't let republicans fool you with their national populism cause they do not give a single care for veterans who died and suffered for America. They would hollow out the VA and fill it corporate and political stooges who would blindly follow the GOP's bidding. Our government doesn't care enough for veterans and here we have Republicans confirming it, remember it was Biden who passed the CARE act. So remember a future where our soldiers suffer more than they already do is what the Republicans want.

[claraameliapond]

This is the genuine planned reality if you vote republican, or refuse to vote at all.

Voting is practical, not philosophical.

You MUST VOTE TO KEEP REPUBLICANS OUT. YOU MUST VOTE BLUE: you can't help Palestine if republicans and Trump get in. Because it will be gone. As will your rights to protest. Along with all your other rights.

Kamala is already supporting permanent ceasefire and has made clear that she does not agree with the human rights violations happening, and as vice president she isn't able to put her full position on Palestine out publicly, because she has to follow her current government's line, but it is different to Biden's.

If you don't actively vote democrat, and Kamala, this is what they will do, because they are psychopaths. Don't let psychopaths get in. Don't fall for demoralising despair propaganda. You can all fix this by actually making sure you vote blue.

Exercise your right to vote, because it's the only one that gives you a say in how your country is run.

Jasmine Crockett CONFRONTS Trumper, Project 2025 Contributor Gene Hamilton : Playbook for a dictator.

[odinsblog]

One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.

Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.

So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.

In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

In Green v. Kennedy (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools. Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.

On June 30, 1971, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued its ruling in the case, now Green v. Connally (John Connally had replaced David Kennedy as secretary of the Treasury). The decision upheld the new IRS policy: “Under the Internal Revenue Code, properly construed, racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to the Federal tax exemption provided for charitable, educational institutions, and persons making gifts to such schools are not entitled to the deductions provided in case of gifts to charitable, educational institutions.”

Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw his opening.

In the decades following World War II, evangelicals, especially white evangelicals in the North, had drifted toward the Republican Party—inclined in that direction by general Cold War anxieties, vestigial suspicions of Catholicism and well-known evangelist Billy Graham’s very public friendship with Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Despite these predilections, though, evangelicals had largely stayed out of the political arena, at least in any organized way. If he could change that, Weyrich reasoned, their large numbers would constitute a formidable voting bloc—one that he could easily marshal behind conservative causes.

“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Weyrich believed that the political possibilities of such a coalition were unlimited. “The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated,” he wrote. “If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams.”

But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

The Green v. Connally ruling provided a necessary first step: It captured the attention of evangelical leaders , especially as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies,” including Falwell’s own Lynchburg Christian School, inquiring about their racial policies. Falwell was furious. “In some states,” he famously complained, “It’s easier to open a massage parlor than a Christian school.”

One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans.

Although Bob Jones Jr., the school’s founder, argued that racial segregation was mandated by the Bible, Falwell and Weyrich quickly sought to shift the grounds of the debate, framing their opposition in terms of religious freedom rather than in defense of racial segregation. For decades, evangelical leaders had boasted that because their educational institutions accepted no federal money (except for, of course, not having to pay taxes) the government could not tell them how to run their shops—whom to hire or not, whom to admit or reject.

The Civil Rights Act, however, changed that calculus.

(continue reading)

[mikiusol]

Keep working hard.

I thought it'll be nice to draw Heatwave telling Cody to not give up 🫶 I think a big part of his character was wanting his hard work to be recognised, so it was very touching when Heatwave took the initiative to get to know him better in ep 1 😊 And I thought it was touching how he put his foot down that same episode and said he won't stay if Cody couldn't stay in the team.

My mid semester tests recently ended! But some of my friends, especially in uni, are still doing their final year end projects. (I'm also working on some duo assignments and projects during my break now). So I drew this as sort of an encouragement lol. I know it's hard now, but things will get better for you. Don't give up!!!

[ridenwithbiden]

WE'RE NOT GOING BACK

[decolonize-the-everything]

Democrats will unironically tell you how progress is impossible because of the way the system is set up and how Biden's "hands are tied" and say they know everything (housing, wages, police) sucks and maybe even how Biden "isn't perfect" BUT it's not democrats fault that our government is corrupt nor that the government doesn't listen to us anymore and how they listen only to our money and how we should be lucky to still be able to vote and how we should prioritize queer lives within the USA as a tradeoff with Palestinians this election because they'll come for our rights too and STILL not hear themselves when they say "vote blue" and even have the audacity act with aggressive denial when you respond with "democracy is dead and voting isn't enough."

[my-midlife-crisis]

[soberscientistlife]

Vote for Kamala. She has a health care policy (that sucks)

[razorroy]

You get indicted for interfering in a presidential election. Where you have every right to do it.

You can not be surprised by the fools that follow this fool