u/oakseaer

This is my third (and final) post reviewing the recent bills Langworthy has sponsored.

Shortly after the Tops shooting, Langworthy introduced HR 645, with Rep Massie.

It declares that any state law imposing a “barrier to entry” on carrying firearms in public has “no force or effect,” nullifying New York’s requirement to hold a permit in order to carry a gun.

Applicants go through a background investigation, a mental health records check under the SAFE Act, a review of state criminal records, and an in-person interview. The bill would also end New York’s training requirement. The state currently requires 16 hours of classroom instruction and 2 hours of live-fire practice before issuing a carry permit. These requirements could no longer be enforced.

The bill allows gun bans only in places that physically screen for firearms, like courthouses with metal detectors. New York’s other gun-free zones would be void, including schools, the subway, busses, bars, hospitals, playgrounds, and houses of worship.

People barred from possessing guns under state or federal law, such as convicted felons and domestic abusers, would remain barred. But no permit means no point at which anyone verifies that status in any state databases in the decades after a purchase, and gun owners moving from out of state are never checked.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/645

Last paragraph edited for accuracy.

Last year, the House Judiciary Committee voted 13–10 to advance H.R. 589, which would repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Enacted in 1994 with bipartisan support after a wave of violent attacks, including the murder of abortion provider Dr. David Gunn, the law makes it a federal crime to use force, threats, or physical obstruction to block access to reproductive health facilities, places of worship, or crisis pregnancy centers.

Data collected by the National Abortion Federation show the law’s impact on provider and patient safety. Since the passage of the FACE Act, anti-abortion violence decreased by nearly 30%. However, NAF has reported significant increases in clinic disruptions following Dobbs, including a 229% spike in stalking incidents, a 231% rise in clinic invasions, and a doubling of assault reports from 2021 to 2022. The FACE Act remains one of the few federal tools aimed specifically at addressing those threats.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/589

The Save Our Bacon Act would bar states or subdivisions from establishing conditions for the sale or consumption of any livestock that isn’t physically raised in that state. This would effectively nullify the housing standards established by California’s Prop 12 and similarly, Massachusetts’ Question 3, for producers outside of the state.

The California law effectively bans gestational crates for pregnant sows. The crates are metal stalls that are about 7 feet by 2 feet and are barely bigger than an adult pig. Prop 12 requires pork products to come from a pig born to a sow raised with at least 24-square-foot space. This allows for enough room to turn around in the enclosure. It also set standards for veal calves and egg-laying hens.

Kara Shannon, director of farm animal welfare policy for the ASPCA, tells Sentient that consumers support humane systems for animals. Both Prop 12 and Question 3 were voter-approved ballot measures.

“We know the animals really suffer in those conditions, and we have made so much progress moving them out of those cages and crates into cage- and crate-free environments, so if we pass, Save Our Bacon Act, it really is effectively putting many of them back in cages,” Shannon says.

A 2022 poll of likely voters by Data for Progress found that 83% of Democrats, 77% of Republicans and 80% of Independents say that preventing animal cruelty is a matter of personal moral concern. A representative for ASPCA pointed Sentient to the poll.

Some diseases with active animal hosts probably can’t be eradicated by the Hive, like Ebola, but there are many that currently have effective treatments, like Tuberculosis (which is still the mostly deadly disease, killing more people last year than any other).

The effective treatment/cure for that disease, like many others (opiate addiction, for example), just isn’t available in the place it’s spreading. If the Hive allocated tests and drugs to every region currently impacted, feasibly the disease could be eradicated by the end of the season.

Even very progressive Christians with a historically informed view of the Bible (and who are open about women or LGBT people having the same power in the church, for example) seem to accept that some number of people will burn in Hell forever - why does this view have so much support here? Is it just a reflection of most mainstream denominations?

It seems pretty clear from a lay reading of His word that everyone’s saved, even those that sin or never believe in Jesus, and logically it seems clear that an all-loving God wouldn’t condemn people to suffer eternally simply for having a different belief system and upbringing. I’ll include some examples from the text below, just to elucidate my point.

“All people will see God's salvation.” Luke 3:6

“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people” Titus 2:11

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” James 12:32

“The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9

“For no one is cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love.” Lamentations 3:31-32

“On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there.” Revelation 21:25

“For just as in Adam all die, in Christ all will be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22

Israel’s Declaration of Independence explicitly promises "complete social and political equality for all its citizens, without distinction on the grounds of religion, race or sex". Landmark rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court have reinforced these foundational rights. For example, in the Ka'adan case, the Supreme Court ruled that the state and its institutions must treat all elements in the state equally, explicitly ordering land authorities to treat Arabs equally in allocations.

https://knesset.gov.il/constitution/ConstMHumanRights.htm

Arab political parties regularly run for and hold seats in the Knesset (Israel's parliament). While they have historically struggled to gain representation in the governing coalitions, in mid-2021, an independent Arab party officially joined Israel's governing coalition for the first time.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel examines violations and crimes against and affecting Palestinian children, including serious physical and psychological harm by the Israeli security forces since 7 October 2023 resulting in the death of at least 20,179 and injury of 44,143 children.

The paper describes the deliberate targeting and killing of Palestinian children, including post-ceasefire since the October 2025 Gaza peace plan. The Commission also examines a sharp increase in violence perpetrated by members of Israeli settlers against Palestinian children in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

The Commission examines the use of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment, including sexual and gender-based violence, against Palestinian children, particularly during mass arrests and in detention. It analyses pattern of Israel’s targeting of critical infrastructure essential to children, such as healthcare facilities and its short- to long-term consequences, as well as the impact of reproductive violence on newborns, resulting in poor neonatal health and birthing outcomes; attacks on orphanages and schools, impacting the loss of care for orphans and unaccompanied children, and inducing academic harm and learning disruptions for children, respectively.

The Commission examines the impact of the conditions of life imposed by Israel in Gaza resulting in preventable mortality of children, exacerbating morbidity, and serious mental trauma from the relentless and widespread attacks by Israel over two years – collectively revealing severe, multi-layered harm to Palestinian children’s survival, health, and development. Further, the Commission examines how Israeli soldiers mock and weaponize symbols of childhood in Gaza, raising ethical, disciplinary and legal questions about the conduct of the Israeli security forces during the ground invasion of Gaza.

Lastly, the Commission provides recommendations to diverse stakeholders for the cessation of attacks, reparations, accountability and international enforcement of sanctions – aimed at advancing child-responsive justice.

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session62/a-hrc-62-crp-2.pdf

We use data from the first wave of the Panel Study on American Religion and Ethnicity to estimate a multivariate sample selection model of charitable giving of time and money highlighting the roles of political ideology, religiosity, political and social involvement, and diversity in personal relationships while controlling for other factors commonly identified in the scholarly work on philanthropic behavior. Our findings provide no evidence that political conservatives are more charitable than political liberals as advanced by Brooks (2006). To the contrary, our results suggest that at least in terms of volunteering, political conservatives are less charitable than political liberals. We also find evidence that the adverse impacts of political conservatism on charitable behavior are exacerbated by the increasing importance of religion/religious faith in one's life. These results, together with robust findings of significant and positive independent effects of other participation, involvement, and diversity variables, imply that charitable actions are both practice-driven and ideology-driven and somewhat at odds with the findings of Vaidyanathan et al*.* (2011).

What drives charitable donations of time and money? The roles of political ideology, religiosity, and involvement