Politics

10168 readers

35 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

141

Ex U.S. spies warned the Hunter Biden scandal had Russian fingerprints. They feel vindicated now. (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 7 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@beehaw.org

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If I remember correctly, hospitals in that state had to stop performing IVF as a consequence in order to avoid being at risk of violating the law. Classifying embryos as children has really important consequences.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

My point was that nobody in government said anything about banning IVF or coming after IVF doctors. That was just extrapolation from what the court was talking about, in the course of making ultimately to me a perfectly sensible decision about the facts of the case they were looking at. Right? Like I say, unless I missed something.

I don't think the hospitals "had to" stop performing IVF. I think they came up with that as an extrapolation from this one ruling.

I do think it's "sensible" in the current political climate for the hospitals to stop IVF until things are clarified, and I do think it's an indictment of the general anti-abortion-to-the-point-of-negligent-homicide feeling in the Republican party that they felt they had to do that. But nobody actually wants to ban IVF, as far as I know. That was my point. I think the state is probably backpedaling hard now to try to figure out how to undo this shitstorm and make it clear that they support IVF without looking "weak" on abortion somehow.

I'm not trying to take them off the hook for anything. Just trying to clarify, that's all.