this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
777 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19885 readers
4093 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it claimed to be removing the judiciary from the abortion debate. In reality, it simply gave the courts a macabre new task: deciding how far states can push a patient toward death before allowing her to undergo an emergency abortion.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit offered its own answer, declaring that Texas may prohibit hospitals from providing “stabilizing treatment” to pregnant patients by performing an abortion—withholding the procedure until their condition deteriorates to the point of grievous injury or near-certain death.

The ruling proves what we already know: Roe’s demise has transformed the judiciary into a kind of death panel that holds the power to elevate the potential life of a fetus over the actual life of a patient.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 136 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Wait wait wait….. wasn’t “death panels” what the right was screaming about with Obamacare?

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 80 points 1 year ago

Death Panels are only good when Insurance Corporations and Republicans are making the decisions.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago

You're thinking of the bad kind of death panels. Those are the good kind of death panels, obviously.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 46 points 1 year ago

It's always projection with fascists.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Tremble@sh.itjust.works 122 points 1 year ago (9 children)

People who believe in a sky god are creepy as fuck.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe so, but the war against abortion isn't based on religious texts. It was ginned up by pieces of shit who tied it to the bible artificially by painting a complex issue as a black and white case of "murder". Which is bullshit to anyone remotely understanding of reality.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It may not be directly tied to religious works. However, religion is being used to prop it up, as usual. I still agree that people can practice what they wish, though I'm beginning to feel strongly that religion is a plague and we'd be better off without it. Yet, I suppose, evil fools would just find something else to cower behind.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

That's pretty close to how I feel about it too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Most of religion isn't based on religious texts. The texts are just the marketing material. Once you're inside they're largely ignored.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Srh@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Tell that to the Catholics

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

They're wrong though. They pulled that shit out of their ass.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

1000 flies eat shit. 1000 flies can't be wrong.

That's their mentality.

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's more than that. You know all those stories of things God did in the Old Testament? The plagues and the disasters and famines and droughts? To them, those aren't just stories, that's shit that actually happened. That's shit that they think should happen to people they think are evil. They believe that God has an active and vibrant presence on His Creation, and that He would never allow evil to prosper in it. To this date, no plagues of boils or locusts has descended upon them. None of their leaders have been smote by bolts of lightning from the sky. None of their megachurches have been razed to the ground by pillars of flame. None of their firstborns have mysteriously died in the night. In the lack of all this divine punishment, what other conclusion can they draw but "We must be doing something right!"? I mean how many times have we heard one of them say something like, "If what I'm doing is evil, then may God strike me dead!"? And then, the smiting doesn't happen. What else could they think?

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A lot of those bad thing have happened to them, but they just handwave that away with "god works in mysterious ways!" or "it's a test!"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nothing about the anti-choice movement is religious; it's tribalism. Same way as gun rights have nothing to do with the sky god either.

If we're being honest, the only strictly biblical argument on the topic of abortion leans heavily pro-choice and sometimes even pro-abortion-as-punishment. Throughout most of history most Christian branches have been neutral or passively negative on abortion, usually considering it a minor sin that it wasn't their job to prosecute (yes, occasionally either banning or encouraging it as well). The idea that life begins with conception is distinctly non-traditional (Judaism or firstgen Christianity) and was picked up from the Pythagorians.

It's important to differentiate cultural mores from religion. Organized Religion can make you convince yourself something is wrong when you are otherwise strongly predisposed to find it right (or vice versa). Cultural mores is more like "omg, you can't see my ankles how dare you!". They're like behavioral "dialects", much like happens in language. Technically, when I say something is wicked pissah, I "inhereted" that from the Mainers despite my not being from Maine. That doesn't mean it came from my religious ties with them. My parents and peers taught it to me. Same as all my fucked up knee-jerk morals I grew up with.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 106 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Something needs to be done about the 5th circuit. They routinely make decisions that are directly counter to established law and the Constitution itself.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

but do not counter state laws

the US has been letting states make decisions instead of making federal laws stick just like cannabis is federally illegal unless the state says so

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

State laws don't trump federal laws. Weed is still federally illegal and you can't own firearms if you smoke, regardless of what your state says.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I did not believe it at first, but they overturned that in August

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Belgdore@lemm.ee 93 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I remember going through Roe v. Wade in law school and thinking how shaky the legal foundation was. This is a great case study of why we need to formally adopt laws in congress and not just rely on the whims of the court.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (6 children)

You're not wrong. No one wants to hear it, but Roe was reasoned terribly. They attempted to appease everyone by protecting abortion but setting limits.

While laws are a better avenue, I do not believe Congress has the authority to regulate abortion. From where does the authority arise, interstate commerce?

The Supreme Court could have ruled that the most basic and fundamental right, which is woven throughout the constitution, is a right to bodily autonomy. The idea of controlling one's own body is supported by a host of amendments. Incorporate the right with the 14th and abortion is protected everywhere.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've always seen it more that the Roe decision is what happens when an anti-choice majority rules on abortion in "reasonably good faith", leaving the opening for erosion when a 14th Amendment Decision would have been steelclad. I don't think they wanted to appease everyone, they just didn't want to compromise their legal ethics OR their personal morals.

And I guess I don't think it would have been steeclad because Dobbs wasn't about leaning around Roe insomuch as saying "Roe was wrong" because "the fetus is special and should be treated as such" (paraphrase because I'm too lazy to look up the offending line in Dobbs right now). Bodily Autonomy could easily be overturned by a bad faith judiciary by simply pointing out DUI laws, or even "the spirit of drug laws"... OR just saying "the fetus is special" the same as they did in Dobbs.

In fact, call me paranoid, but I question whether the current SCOTUS wouldn't overturn a national abortion protection on States Rights grounds, finding some reason to disqualify the Commerce Clause from being applicable.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] hansl@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As long as we have a congress that’s split around the 50/50 line on issues like these, laws will never get passed.

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Even if a law got passed, it would get repealed when the other side gets the majority. This needs a constitutional amendment and I really don't see that happening ever.

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or a strong supreme court interpretation that argues that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right and already implied by the 1st, 3rd (if you consider your body to be a house) and 4th amendments (if you consider searching a uterus unreasonable). It is also EXPLICIT in the 5th amendment. Fetuses are not legally considered persons by any jurisdiction (otherwise they could be claimed as dependents) so the life of the person gestating them is protected while the life of the fetus is not. This interpretation is not very popular.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 56 points 1 year ago

I remember how US conserves would look at euthanasia laws in the Netherlands and falsely claim that there are death panels there who decide when you will die.

Turns out they weren't just only lying, they were fantasizing

[–] Shelbyeileen@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

I'm so glad I got my tubes removed when I did, because there's a long waitlist now. My sister just gave birth and had severe complications ... I cannot imagine if we had lost her over a law like this. It sounds harsh, but you can always make another baby if the uterus is saved (or adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of orphans in the USA).

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yep. When DARVO-ists like Palin were bleating about "death panels" they were demonstrating their usual projection.

Conservatives and the Republicans are a death cult. They should never be allowed into office, ever.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

withholding the procedure until their condition deteriorates to the point of grievous injury or near-certain death.

Where an individual reasonably believes an attacker poses a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm, any person is justified in using any level of force - up to and including lethal force - necessary to stop the attack.

If the claims made in this article are accurate (and they very well might not be), then In setting the standard of care at the point where a person reasonably fears "grievous injury or near-certain death", the courts may have inadvertently justified the use of force in self-defense and/or defense of others against any executive using the power of their office to attack an individual.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 17 points 1 year ago

Indeed, language like this puts a bullseye on healthcare professionals that already have/had one because of COVID and the fascists spreading wild conspiracy theories. This is almost a 2 birds with one stone stroke for them, you make abortion something any medical professional wants to distance themself from out of fear of their own life, but you also help undermine the whole medical field by would-be parents afraid to go to a hospital with complications as they may not come back out (or having suffered irreversible health effects).

[–] Aviandelight@mander.xyz 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While this would in theory work for justifying the actions of the mother it does nothing to help enable medical professionals in providing care. The court ruling basically tells all medical professionals that they may not perform abortions for any reason. It's a death sentence pure and simple and now the hospitals are only allowed to sit back and watch.

[–] skydivekingair@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Why wouldn’t health care professionals be able to assist?

In Texas, the Castle Doctrine is codified under the Texas Penal Code, specifically in sections 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33. Key provision for this would be: The use of deadly force is justifiable if the individual reasonably believes it is necessary to protect themselves or someone else from imminent death or serious bodily injury, or to prevent the commission of a violent crime such as aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, or robbery.

You could shoot me in Texas if I were robbing the gas station store with a deadly weapon, I would think that OPs argument that a health care professional could help and cite the Castle Doctrine as a defense.

[–] Aviandelight@mander.xyz 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'll fully admit that I was unaware of the Texas Castle Doctrine law. That would in fact be an interesting angle to pursue if hospitals had a backbone. But I will stick by my opinion that hospitals will refuse to treat these women as the laws stand now because they will never risk any chance at litigation to save a mother's life.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

The conservative judges would have quite the quandary should a dying woman shoot her ectopic fetus.

[–] virku@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

What the actual fuck.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is going to put a lot of doctors and medical people in a dangerous spot.

Good luck hiding behind laws when you have a distraught husband who has just watched his wife, and the child he hoped to soon meet, die slowly and horribly.

But it's also illegal for our hypothetical heartbroken and angry husband to beat a doctor to death, or just shoot them because texas, right? That makes it all better I'm sure.

[–] occhionaut@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

GOP love this outcome since it gives them more tragedy fodder to push even more extreme measures that fail to address the problem and only serves the wealthy or privileged.

Blatant, flippant traitors.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 15 points 1 year ago

When did they try to hide this? They've been pretty explicit about this for a while now

load more comments
view more: next ›