A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that Texas hospitals and doctors are not obligated to perform abortions under a longstanding national emergency-care law, dealing a blow to the White House’s strategy to ensure access to the procedure after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in 2022.
And they claim that they “don’t hate women they just love babies! <3 <3”
I am disgusted, but not surprised.
They just hate their political opposition.
They love everything their media tells them to.
I wonder what it would cost to secretly buy up faux news and maybe OAN and the start pushing “subversive” material. (The truth is subversive, yes?)
It would probably be easier to just make a new one. Have a few articles slamming dems, but then secretly push left wing politics in a “conservative” voice.
“Biden doesn’t have to balls to pass the Freedom Health Care Act” (which will secretly be socialized health care).
They’re so dumb they’ll believe anything of it comes from an obese red faced man yelling. Just slip “and our guns?!!!” In every so often.
I would disagree but when Fox was whining about what AOC believed in and put it on a bulleted list it was as much an eye opener as you can get into the thinking of a conservative. Specifically that they can say “caring for seniors” is a bad thing with a straight face knowing nobody would question them.
BUT MUH GUNZZZ
hah. exactly. Though, honestly… OAN and Faux news has name recognition. it’s hard to take the views from them, or to build up such a network. Remember. Fox was purposes built to sell propaganda since '96(?). we don’t have that kind of time
Well, you’re right that we don’t have that kind of time. The effort would have to be very organized, and it would cost a lot of money. I doubt that kind of funding could be raised knowing it was a farce without the truth getting out.
They’re not for sale. They’re ideological organizations. At best you’d need a decades long con to even float the idea.
everybody has a price. The more… noble… people, that price might not be cash. but every one has a price.
Murdochs? yeah, they’ll sell if it’s high enough. They’ll even keep it quiet if it’s high enough.
I doubt that with these people. When you have the kinds of money these people do it’s not about more money but more power. Quite literally controlling how a not insignificant portion of the “western world” views the world is absolutely invaluable.
Love dying babies, dead moms****
Because moms aren’t women, they are moms!!!/s
Ok, to get this straight: cops do not need to protect, nor serve, and doctors do not need to save your life. I suppose life guards will get to decide whether or not they will grab a drowning child. Maybe the bathing suit is distasteful? If someone is in the street, I don’t have to stop unless I am fully comfortable doing so; I paid for my car and I shouldn’t have to risk damaging it by running someone over.
What are regulations even for? God, the government is so useless!
Hard /s
- The conservative government is useless
It’s not useless, it’s actively harmful.
Useless would be not providing funding for public health initiatives around contraception and abortions.
But actively preventing adults from making life changing medical decisions for themselves is worse than useless, it’s harmful.
Conservatives have been so committed to “the scariest words are the government saying I’m here to help” that they now aggressively make sure the government hurts people.
The Republican party needs to go the way of the Whigs.
Were the whigs beheaded? Cause, I might be more interested in that. 😇
Roll out the guillotines! *
*for display, for legal purposes. 😏
Just think of what it’ll do to all your precious momentum you already built up when you press the brakes!
Well that’s fucking sickening
“Some of you may die, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take.”
Poor women.
But a prime example what failing to codify into law does. The pro choice lawmakers failed all these decades to actually create robust laws protecting women’s reproductive choice and health. Then Roe fell and there was nothing to hold back the hordes of Christian zealots waiting in the wings. Their intent was clear as some states even had trigger laws that would enact the moment Roe fell.
You see that now there is a scurry to create several laws that should curtail the president’s power, as certain limits existed based on decency, decorum and shame. Now that decency, decorum and shame no longer play a role in politics, only hard and explicit rules help.
They never did anything because roe was rock fucking solid!!! Scotus had to literally show how corrupt they were by completely ignoring the 9th and the 14th amendments. They basically completely destroyed 50 years of jurisprudence and literally lied in their Dobbs reasoning.
Stop pretending any fucking law on the books would have stopped these ghouls.
Except it wasn’t law, only jurisprudence. And many law scholars warned about the exact scenario that unfolded.
They ignored literal parts of the Constitution. How is another law going to stop that?
The Roe ruling was one based on a privacy argument that held up. A law explicitly enshrining these rights might have helped.
There are thousands of pages of legal analysis out there that break down how that should work. The goal would be to explicitly state these rights I stead of allowing interpretation by judges.
But laws are interpreted by the courts so a law passed by Congress would still be subject to their interpretation. In fact, even rights outlined in Constitutional amendments are interpreted by the courts. The best option would have been a constitutional amendment that was as specific as possible. However,
A) a constitutional amendment was not needed and should not have been required. The right to abortion was already codified in law and had a large pile of case law backing it up. Should we try to pass amendments for all the unenumerated rights? Do we need a state convention every time the courts rule in a way that establishes a new right?
B) Even that would not have stopped a court that had already made up its mind decades ago. They could have ruled that the new amendment violated the old ones and was void. They could have ruled it only protected abortion in rare cases, or that states rights are more important and overrule the right to abortion.
C) a constitutional amendment was never going to pass to requirements to become law. It would require a Dem supermajority in both chambers or Dem control of 2/3rds of states which is impossible with current gerrymandering.
Fundamentally we are looking at a whole party that would break any rule, law, or norm as long as it lets them do what they want. Establishing more rules or laws just gives them more things to break. The only party at fault here is them.
every time the courts rule in a way that establishes a new right?
The courts don’t routinely invent entirely new rights whole cloth. It’s much, much more common to make rulings on exactly how already established rights apply in new or untested scenarios. Roe is one of those exceptions. Roe was weak legally, even if it was good from a policy standpoint.
They never did anything because roe was rock fucking solid!!!
No, it wasn’t. It was always just one bad decision away from crumbling, one that was always imminent because while it might be good policy, it was a bad decision from a legal standpoint. Any decision built on implied rights drawn from the shadows cast by other legal rights is inherently going to be on shaky ground, because determining what exactly those implied rights are is like reading tea leaves.
It doesn’t help that a lot of the arguments, positions and implied rights surrounding abortion seem to only apply in that context.
No, it wasn’t. There are plenty of areas in medical care and our personal medical decisions that somehow didn’t fall under these amendments.
It was not solid, which is why Dems kept promising for 50 years to codify it into law. They fucked around and women got screwed.
deleted by creator
I reject that way of describing my comment.
The heinous attack was already ongoing, with the trigger laws, rhetoric and actions (protesting abortion clinics is vile).
And the only legal recourse and opposition to these actions (that the US law protects) is by changing these laws.
You can stomp your feet all you want but the mother-killing christian nutbags that planned this scenario knew this, played the game, and won the last battle. Now women are paying the price.
So yes, lawmakers absolutely are to blame for not codifying into law the protection of reproductive choice. That does in no way mean that they are to blame for the vile actions of the pro-mother killing evangelicals, they can carry their own torch.
I want to add that your immediate attack on people that mostly align with your desired outcome will most likely alienate your would be allies instead of getting their help… Or maybe that is your plan.
Edit: and to be clear the victims are the women not the lawmakers.
deleted by creator
Jup so let’s stop arguing. We agree that women’s reproductive rights and right to bodily autonomy should be protected. I get your point, I just see that differently. There is value in also addressing the shortcomings of the defense that could have been used. Like with the military, analysis of failed defense learns lessons for future actions. But this definately does not change the goals, nor who the opposition is.
I didn’t read this as an attack, but criticism. On a state level there should be enough institutions, constitutions and other means to protect this type of laws against vile actors from within.
The states are the baddies in these cases unfortunately.
“The States” have been baddies since before the uniting.
Their intent was clear as some states even had trigger laws that would enact the moment Roe fell.
And some, like mine, just never repealed the old law against it. No need to pass a trigger law when the old unenforceable abortion ban that’s literally older than the state can suddenly become enforceable.
EDIT: Surprised no one commented on the “literally older than the state” part. I’m in WV, our old abortion ban was carried over when we more or less imported Virginia’s criminal code wholesale when we broke off from Virginia to stay with the Union in the Civil War.
“some of you may die, but it’s the will of god.”
This ruling is literally this court overriding a law. It’s the first sentence if the summary. “A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that Texas hospitals and doctors are not obligated to perform abortions under a longstanding national emergency-care law,”
Can you, and everyone else, please stop with this ridiculous argument? It honestly might be one of the stupidest things said about abortion, and that’s saying something.
First, Republicans weren’t passing this, so you need Democratic control of the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the presidency. So you’re down to about 70 days in the past 40 years when this could have happened.
Second, where does Congress get the authority to regulate abortion? Interstate Commerce? How are you circumventing the 10th amendment?
Lastly, why wouldn’t SCOTUS strike down this law when they overturned Roe? So they are willing to strike 50 years of judicial precedent, but not an act of Congress?
Your argument doesn’t make sense and you’re blaming the wrong people.
Death panels are real in TX
The 5th Circuit: when you need a less legitimate court than SCOTUS.
Yeah, the 5th circuit is pretty widely known to be full of crazies. This ruling isn’t a surprise, and it’s exactly what Texas’ leadership wanted when they pushed to take it to federal court.
The Hippocrite’s Oath:
First- allow harm.
*hypocrite
Thanks. Always have a problem with that one. Gonna leave it for continuity.
Thought it was fine worked that way as a play on words.
I appreciate that. I’ve been trying to do the same thing with my comments as well (with a few exceptions). I think it’s the right way to go about things, so digital-high-five
deleted by creator
Is there such a thing as murder by inaction? As in you could have prevented a death by taking action, and you didn’t? Sounds like this might be it.
Social Murder could be the term, but there may be a more suited one.
Social murder (German: sozialer Mord) is the unnatural death that occurs due to social, political, or economic oppression.
In Texas it’s called Negligent Homicide.
Yes, very much. Like murder by homeless sweeps destroying life saving medications. But out society accepts that much more than something like a classical murder.
deleted by creator
Of course this kind of law exist, and no, there’s no slippery slope because it’s stupid.
Negligent homicide?
A sick part of me is happy that these states are going insane. I can’t wait for a redneck to start crying when his wife dies because his already dead-in-the-womb baby still counts as a baby, and the doctor says, “gosh, that’s an abortion! I can’t do that because of your vote”
The problem is that they will never acknowledge that they were the ones that caused them to get to that point. That is why we are here today.
Some will admit it. When it affects them.
But the number actually affected isn’t enough to sway elections. And the rest have zero empathy for others or foresight so won’t care unless they are impacted.
True, they can’t smell their own shit on their knees.
It’s hard to smell the shit on your knees when you’ve got your head up someone’s ass.
A lot of people are going to be hurt and killed in the meantime.
I’d have preferred to not see that happen in the first place
I mean, if they are right-wing… No great loss.
An absolute fuckload aren’t.
Well, then someone should get rid of those Supreme Court justices.
It’s like worrying about the emergency overflow drain on the AC that’s been dripping for a year when the entire system needs an overhaul, but sure, that would at least fix a problem.
The redneck will probably just scream Obamacare killed his wife then go vote for Trump even if he isn’t on the ballot that year.
Most likely.
The people who pass this legislation can afford to covertly leave the state they ruined for a blue one.
Unfortunately there is no sadistic pleasure here except what they feel when women are deprived of their bodily atonomy, pushing them one step closer to property, to be bartered to people with power like them. It’s the only way to permanently reverse the trend of men growing up left of center, keeping young misguided boys incels losers forever as opposed to switching belief systems the moment they have to start appealing at all to women.
That happened hundreds of times with COVID, didn’t change a thing. The GOP does not serve constituents, it’s the other way around.
Which will happen to maybe one tenth of one percent of the people voting for this shit and won’t make a damn bit of difference.
But I’m glad to see you’re happy to show your pointless schadenfreude with the internet.
You’re welcome. And it’s only a pleasure to watch leopards dining on faces, just so we’re clear.
Is this one of those things where you just assume everyone in a red state supports it an deserves it? You do realize there are massive voter suppression campaigns and gerrymandering problems in these areas, right? But I guess fuck them they asked for it.
First, do
nosome harm.I still do not understand how lawmakers are allowed to practice medicine without a doctorate.
Having just read it, I am extremely disappointed to know that the Hippocratic oath doesn’t mention anything about failing to provide care when it’s necessary.
Be kind to these people when they come to seek asylum in your state. People can change and learn from their mistakes (in the case that they voted these reps in, they might not even regret it but honey and vinegar right?)
46% of Texans voted for Biden. Before the election, there were (wishful) talks of Texas becoming purple. It’s much more blue than Florida, for example. But, the gerrymandering is pretty egregious.
Here’s one district that contains black neighborhoods in both San Antonio and Austin, which are about 100 miles apart.
This is so fucking terrible. How is this democratic.
✨*it’s not ~~*✨
Just another example of why we need district lines to be assigned by an explicit mathematical process rather than politicians deciding what will best let them retain power.
Least split line is an example of an attempt at that (basically if you have an even number of districts to split into, draw the shortest line across the region that splits the population into an even number of people on each side and put half the districts on each side. If odd, then do almost the same, except instead of an even split, one side gets the extra “share” of people and the extra district to split into. Repeat the process for each piece until you have one district on each side of the line.
For example, if a state has 5 seats, then draw the shortest line that puts 60% of the population on one side and 40% on the other (a 3:2 ratio). Then for the 40% side, draw the shortest line across it that splits the population in half. For the 60% side, you draw the shortest line that produces a 2:1 split, then the shortest line across the 2 side that splits the population evenly. Each district now contains 20% of the population, all drawn without regard to or consideration of political affiliations or identity groups, and all generally pretty compact. Inconvenient if you want to ensure your party’s continued power or create “majority minority” districts, but then those aren’t the goals (and are actually antithetical to the goal of preventing gerrymandering).
This is the paradox of tolerance. You don’t need to show kindness to those who would sooner spit on you for no greater reason than that they hate you for being born or the circumstances of your life.
People can change, but being given a second chance is a privilege and not a right. If you fuck up badly enough, no one is obligated to forgive you. Plenty of us make it through our whole lives without being fearful little shits who dedicate our votes to hurting others. I have no tolerance for those who can’t manage that, and they’re LUCKY to get a second chance, not guaranteed.
Ah I was confused at first I was like you’re describing the solution to that paradox, but then I think your intended meaning clicked
It’s an interesting thought experiment until, like you mentioned, you consider tolerance is only for those who are themselves tolerant.
Either you play in this ball park or you don’t, simple as that
I disagree. Conservatives cannot “change and learn”. If they could, they would not be conservatives. They may temporarily pretend to change when it benefits them. But, that should not be confused with actual change or growth.
Conservatives delight in the misery, oppression and death of others. It is who they are at their core. Be extremely careful dealing with them. They do not value the lives of others the way normal people do.
This is so insanely short sighted but I guess user name checks out lol
How is that short sighted? They’ve been doing this for 300 years.
All of human history.
Lol so you’re telling me in the last 300 years (and I have absolutely no idea where you’re pulling that time frame from) not one single conservative has ever changed or learned from their mistakes. 100% of them are just pure evil and “delight in the misery, oppression, and death of others.”
On top of that you’re also saying these are core values of these people, meaning the same holds true for any current and future conservatives. They’re all pure evil and utterly incapable of change or learning anything… Permanently.
I not a fan at all of conservatives by and large but I know plenty level headed non-bat shit crazy conservatives and (to my knowledge) they do not hold a party any time people die or someone gets oppressed lol.
This doesn’t sound the least bit strange to you?
I hope my blue state builds a fucking wall.
I am in NM sand Texas is currently building a wall on our border. I am unsure if they are lost, or are trying to keep people from fleeing their state.
Texas is a garbage state in a shithole of a country.
evil goes by the name “far right” currently
That’s not even far right. That’s the mainstream right
