this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
166 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4412 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“How is your interest anything but a religious view?” asked U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberals on the majority-conservative court. “The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It’s still debated in religions. So, when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that’s a religious view, isn’t it?”

Without directly answering, Stewart reiterated that this question about the beginning of life should be returned to the states. Justice Samuel Alito, who would go on to author Dobbs’ majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, helpfully asked the solicitor general whether any secular philosophers and bioethicists might also share the view that personhood begins at conception. Stewart finally responded that his plaintiffs’ interest was “not tied to a religious view.”

Despite that assurance, the nonprofit law firm that helped Stewart argue and win the Dobbs case — the Alliance Defending Freedom — has worked for three decades to change laws to fit an explicitly conservative Christian worldview when it comes to reproductive and family issues, with a focus on ending legal abortion and limiting trans rights. ADF’s systematic strategy to effect generational changes, according to its website, includes targeted litigation and legal training. Constitutional legal experts who study the religious right say the anti-abortion movement’s best chance of keeping unpopular abortion bans on the books is through its growing network of conservative attorneys and judges cultivated by ADF and allied Christian law firms and law schools.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

I remember them talking about doing this in Fellowship of Christian Athletes meetings when I was in 6th grade. That was 25 years ago and not only there but all the Christian orgs I was involved in growing up. They’ve been playing a horrifyingly long and patient game that is finally paying dividends, and they won’t stop until we stop them