756
Texas doctor who said nine-year-olds can safely give birth appointed to maternal mortality committee
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
756 points (99.0% liked)
News
22876 readers
3913 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We can't beat far right extremism with moderate politics.
There's no compromising with people who lie and say anything to get what they want.
Mifepristone, which we have known is safe for over 40 years, is apparently too dangerous but a 9 year old giving birth is a-okay how this quack.
That's what I mean
They 100% know it's safe.
But they do t like that it's legal for other reasons that they know don't have plausible deniability.
So they claim (against all science) it's dangerous, and count on extremists judges to pretend they believe it and outlaw it on that premise.
No amount of factual evidence about the safety of the drug will change any of their actions, because they don't give a single fuck if it's safe or not.
Moderates always fall for the trap and take them at their word. Which is insane, and at this point it seems safe to say the reason is they have a lot of the same donors, and part of the strings to that money is going along with the dog and pony show even tho everyone involved already knows what the result will be.
They do know that. However, a woman (a fucking doctor nonetheless) who thinks it's safe for a 9 year old yo give birth is not playing with a full deck of cards. She honestly should have her license revoked. That is straight batshit.
Other things they try to lure moderates with:
They of course fail to mention that their 12 weeks is closer to our 14/15 weeks, that you can get one at any hospital, you don't have to pay for it, and exceptions for that ban are not hard to come by.
One. One child made it at 21 weeks. At 22 weeks it's a bit better but still extremely unlikely. At 23 weeks there is a 25% chance and at 24 weeks there is a 50% chance. But the percentage of fetuses aborted after 20 weeks is 1%. The vast majority of those are due to issues with the fetus like it will die an excruciating death shortly after birth or the woman will die which is absolutely now a thing in states with restrictive abortion laws. The few where that isn't the case likely could not get one earlier due to expenses or lack of availability in the area or restrictive laws requiring multiple visits.
A rhythmic electrical pulse is not a heart beat.
Abortion is no walk in the park and not cheap. Much easier to simply use birth control which is what the vast majority of women do.
Yeah. Most people ones do not want unrestricted surgery. Not surprising. The vast majority (~85%) were fine with Roe v Wade staying in place and states only being able to pass laws after the point of viability.
First, his name is Yeshua. Second, an abortifacient is prescribed for a suspected cheating woman in the Bible. Southern Baptists dios Not even hice a shit about abortion until the late 70s.
The overall goal is obvious to all of us who recognize that access to abortion is necessary. But be on the lookout for anti abortion advocates who try to seem moderate. They are not.
This message is not directed directly at you but if you happen to come across these arguments, these are some easy responses to point out their bullshit. Also mention that since the end of Roe there have been about 65k pregnancies from rape in the 14 states with near total bans on abortion. Super great. /s
I’d argue that we can beat them from any position, as long as we do it in unity.
And with big sticks.
We also have to overcome gerrymandering, which SCOTUS just said is legal (as long as the GOP pretends to disenfranchise people for political reasons rather than racial ones). At the same time, we need to overwhelm voter suppression with enough genuine votes that it isn't effective. Same with the Electoral College, the illegitimate Supreme Court, and the Senate, which gives outsized influence to big, empty Red States and fight against the unlimited flow of dark money in politics...
It can all still be done, but we have to all vote, donate, and volunteer, as well as be unified as you said. My big unity wish is messaging. No one can compete with Fox News because Right Wing media is very good at staying on-message and we're a "big tent" party, but still; we have to be better at it...
None of that is going to happen. The empire would rather fall. - History.
I'm sure the slaves would "never be freed", women would "never work", black people and woman would never vote", black people would "never have equal rights", etc.
Don't let history get in the way of history.
I would argue that while you're correct you're not 100% correct and overlooking a lot of nuances in history. If you want to look at it like that the empire fractured into two, there was a war and the winning side engulfed the other. None of the things you bring up as examples were accomplished with just unity and lobbying, all of these causes involved violence or the threat of violence. Don't go over simplifying history, a lot of people died for those rights. I by no means am advocating for these liars or violence but history has proven liars like this can be very dangerous and should not be laughed off.
Did you even pay attention to the comment I was responding to? Like how am I suppose to anticipate my response being applied to a completely different argument
That's why I did it! Did you read the comment you were responding to? Being applied to a completely different argument?
I didn't say you were wrong but I was adressing the defeatist part of their argument.
Hey I'm just poking fun. That first comment was obviously a joke, you took it seriously so I ran with your logic and replied to you in the same way.
Not with that attitude.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfasYes, please focus on the thing that needs a constitutional amendment to change, and not the thing that has more popular support.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfasRacial gerrymandering is, but you can say you're drawing districts specifically to help your party win and that's not illegal. At least not at the federal level. Your state might have better rules.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/17/1173469584/partisan-gerrymandering-explainer-north-carolina
And with armaments.