Wednesday night’s debate, which featured eight of the leading not-Donald-Trump candidates for the Republican nomination, spent little time on health care except for an extended exchange on abortion, covered in depth by Vox’s Rachel Cohen.
Abortion — which Fox moderator Martha MacCallum cast as a “losing” political issue for Republicans ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — led to a contentious exchange in which former South Carolina Gov.
Transgender rights and the myriad conservative laws passed in the past few years to restrict access to gender-affirming care were referenced only obliquely in the debate but carried the same message.
More recently, most doctors have come to believe that such patients should be handled more humanely and affirmatively; permitting them to make a social gender transition (changing their name and pronouns, using a different bathroom, etc.)
“Trans advocates have pointed out that these bills fit comfortably within the larger GOP plan to seize minority power in an effort to force their preferred gender dynamics,” Burns wrote.
In one of the most striking tangents of the night, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy even advocated for reopening “mental health institutions” that have closed over the decades as the country sought to cut costs (starting in the Reagan administration) and tried — but has largely failed — to invest in more humane home- and community-based services.
The original article contains 1,667 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I’m sorry, but I think that this bot really needs some work, or to move to a different engine. Every time I read the summary and then read the article, the bot has missed major points or the entire thrust of the article/opinion, and instead uses minutiae that contribute to the piece only in the presence of the original (but now stripped) context.
The central thesis of the article is that the gop wants to use healthcare policies to restrict healthcare that they feel has a conflict with their religious or conservative worldviews. They don’t want to guarantee the rights of trans persons or people seeking abortions against discrimination but instead want the government to regulate what kinds of healthcare are legal. They want to remove decisions from the hands of medical professionals and patients and instead have it regulated by government bureaucrats who lack any relevant education. On the other hand, they do not want the government - even the parts of the government that are intentionally staffed with medical experts - to make decisions about things like pandemic policies.
This kind of paragraph is far more characteristic of the tone and focus of the article than most of the summary:
But a few select moments revealed that GOP candidates, while perfectly comfortable interfering with certain medical decisions, remain opposed to using that same government authority to provide assistance to people who need access to health care or to protect people whose health may be at risk in a public health emergency.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Wednesday night’s debate, which featured eight of the leading not-Donald-Trump candidates for the Republican nomination, spent little time on health care except for an extended exchange on abortion, covered in depth by Vox’s Rachel Cohen.
Abortion — which Fox moderator Martha MacCallum cast as a “losing” political issue for Republicans ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — led to a contentious exchange in which former South Carolina Gov.
Transgender rights and the myriad conservative laws passed in the past few years to restrict access to gender-affirming care were referenced only obliquely in the debate but carried the same message.
More recently, most doctors have come to believe that such patients should be handled more humanely and affirmatively; permitting them to make a social gender transition (changing their name and pronouns, using a different bathroom, etc.)
“Trans advocates have pointed out that these bills fit comfortably within the larger GOP plan to seize minority power in an effort to force their preferred gender dynamics,” Burns wrote.
In one of the most striking tangents of the night, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy even advocated for reopening “mental health institutions” that have closed over the decades as the country sought to cut costs (starting in the Reagan administration) and tried — but has largely failed — to invest in more humane home- and community-based services.
The original article contains 1,667 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I’m sorry, but I think that this bot really needs some work, or to move to a different engine. Every time I read the summary and then read the article, the bot has missed major points or the entire thrust of the article/opinion, and instead uses minutiae that contribute to the piece only in the presence of the original (but now stripped) context.
The central thesis of the article is that the gop wants to use healthcare policies to restrict healthcare that they feel has a conflict with their religious or conservative worldviews. They don’t want to guarantee the rights of trans persons or people seeking abortions against discrimination but instead want the government to regulate what kinds of healthcare are legal. They want to remove decisions from the hands of medical professionals and patients and instead have it regulated by government bureaucrats who lack any relevant education. On the other hand, they do not want the government - even the parts of the government that are intentionally staffed with medical experts - to make decisions about things like pandemic policies.
This kind of paragraph is far more characteristic of the tone and focus of the article than most of the summary:
The bot didn’t complete a sentence. 🤦♀️