Plan B Forum

Merriam-Webster
Full Definition of xenophobia

: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

MajGenl.Meade wrote:

Merriam-Webster
Full Definition of xenophobia

: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

Don't you sometimes weary of being wrong?

You have failed to show that Texans are "strangers or foreigners"

fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

You already showed your ass in the thread about Vietnamese, trying for two?

Lord Jim wrote:One further point to add here:

On the other hand I've been very impressed by my Vietnamese colleagues. Really amazing people*. I think I would enjoy the social aspects of living there.


yrs,
rubato


*My wife loves her Vietnamese patients as well. Tough, uncomplaining, hardworking, good-humored, courageous, express themselves from the heart.

Why would one think "I would enjoy the social aspects of living there" unless they believed that those characteristics could be ascribed to the population in general?

Bicycle Bill wrote:You're right; most of the rest of the US probably wouldn't mind seeing them (try) to go their own way, because you realize that should Texas ever cease to be part of the USA a lot of tax dollars stop flowing into that state as well, starting with money spent on military bases such as Fort Bliss, Fort Hood, Fort Sam Houston, Randolph AFB, Laughlin AFB and the Corpus Christi NAS, plus any and all Coast Guard stations.  Wave 'bye-bye', too, to the NASA complex in Houston.  And best of luck to you the next time something like Hurricane Rita (which struck Louisiana and east Texas in 2005, killing 113 Texans, mostly in the Houston area) or Carla (in 1951; the worst hurricane in history to hit Texas) gets you in their crosshairs.

You would also think that Texas would remember history; after all, several other states, Texas included, attempted to secede once before — and with a marked lack of success.  If they tried it again, the process would be even messier and uglier than the last time, and in the end the results would likely be the same.

-"BB"-

On Eve of SCOTUS Abortion Decision, Texas Accused of Suppressing Key Data

The Supreme Court is expected on Monday to announce its decision on Texas' abortion law, in what could be the most consequential ruling on the issue in a generation. The question: Do new requirements on abortion providers pose an unconstitutional "undue burden" on Texas women?

But among the reams of evidence presented to the high court and the public debate in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, something is still missing: A full, official account of the initial impact of the law on Texas women.

A state employee with knowledge of the annual data Texas collects on abortion spoke to NBC News and is accusing state officials overseeing the Department of Health Services of intentionally blocking the information and instructing staff members to mislead people who ask for it. Because fact-finding traditionally ends after such a case goes to trial, long before it reaches the Supreme Court, the justices may or may not have considered it. But in the court of public opinion, the data could potentially undermine Texas' official argument that its requirements pose no particular burden on women.

First catapulted to the national stage by then-state Sen. Wendy Davis' pink-sneakered filibuster, the law has a bundle of abortion restrictions. Local abortion clinics have asked the Supreme Court to block two of the rules: that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at local hospitals and that even early procedures, including "medication abortions" that involve only taking two pills, take place in expensive ambulatory surgical centers.

Saying they are unable to comply with the admitting privileges provision — in one border town, McAllen, no hospital would even send abortion providers an application — about half of the clinics in Texas have already closed since 2013. If the Supreme Court allows the other requirement to go into effect, only nine or 10 clinics will be left in a state with 5.4 million women of reproductive age.

The court previously defined an illegal "undue burden" as "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." That's what makes information about the potential effect of the law so crucial, and it's why public health researchers and advocates are anxious to see Texas' data from 2014, the first full year the admitting privileges requirement was in effect.

Related: Texas women are running out of options

The state did release a provisional raw number of abortions in 2014, which showed a sharp decline in the procedure, but the full figures would break down the data by procedure, gestational age, region and race, which potentially corroborates the argument that the law poses an undue burden. ... "