this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
589 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18894 readers
2972 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

American political ideology as a whole has shifted left in recent years, but women are becoming even more liberal, according to Gallup.

The survey data, released Wednesday, shows that while the country remains largely center-right, the percentage of those identifying as or leaning liberal has increased over the past three decades, and is now just 1 percent under it’s all-time high.

Roughly 36 percent of adults identify as conservative, 25 percent as liberal and the rest identify as either moderate or unsure, according to the poll.

When broken down by gender ideology, women in the youngest and oldest age groups said they were more likely to identify as liberal.

Women ages 18-29 were 40 percent more likely to be liberal in 2023, a slight decrease from 41 percent in 2022 and 44 percent in 2020, but still higher than the 30 percent in 2013. Those ages 65 and older were 25 percent more likely to identify as liberal — a slight increase from the 21 percent reported in 2013.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I’ll take some local news website or something that lists that sources

In Missouri, hospital doctors told a woman whose water broke at 18 weeks that "current Missouri law supersedes our medical judgment" and so she could not receive an abortion procedure even though she was at risk of infection, according to a report in the Springfield News-Leader.

Oh wow, what's this? Is the NPR article linking sources, and to a local news website no less? Wild. But if you won't accept an NPR article, would you accept an interview on PBS?

Jamila Perritt, President & CEO, Physicians for Reproductive Health: It's important that we understand that abortion is just the tip of the iceberg. You're absolutely right reproductive health across the board is going to be impacted in a really devastating way. We know for folks that are seeking abortion care, the inability to obtain that care results in long-term economic, social, emotional outcomes that are negative as compared with those who have been able to obtain that care.

Or a guardian article (linking a study by the New England Journal of Medicine)?

Despite a carve-out for medical emergencies, the law endangered the lives of high-risk pregnant patients, according to Texas researchers documenting its consequences in a recent New England Journal of Medicine study. Some patients needed to be “at death’s door” to receive pregnancy termination under the law, the paper found, underscoring how abortion bans create dangerous repercussions for complicated pregnancies.

Or a CNN article citing a study published in the American Journal of Gynecology?

But when five of its doctors published a study – one of the first of its kind – about the effect of abortion bans in real life, the medical center didn’t issue a news release. The research, published in the American Journal of Gynecology, found that at two Texas hospitals, the abortion bans were “associated with significant maternal morbidity.”

Or a Texas Tribune article?

Meanwhile, despite exceptions to the law, the number of monthly abortions in Texas has dropped into the low single digits. Women are nearly dying from pregnancy complications, or actually dying after having to travel out-of-state for abortions, or facing million-dollar lawsuits for helping friends acquire abortion medication. An unknown number are having babies they never planned for.

Or a Fox News article?

According to the lawsuit, one of the doctors, Damla Karsan, "has seen that physicians in Texas are even afraid to speak out publicly about this issue for fear of retaliation" and has witnessed how "widespread fear and confusion regarding the scope of Texas’s abortion bans has chilled the provision of necessary obstetric care, including abortion care."

Or a second Fox News article?

Doctors told Cox that if the baby's heartbeat were to stop, inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her prior cesareans, and that another C-section at full term would would endanger her ability to carry another child.

"It is not a matter of if I will have to say goodbye to my baby, but when. I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer," Cox said in a statement.

In July, several Texas women gave emotional testimony about carrying babies they knew would not survive and doctors unable to offer abortions despite their spiraling conditions. A judge later ruled that Texas’ ban was too restrictive for women with pregnancy complications, but that decision was swiftly put on hold after the state appealed.

Does it matter what the source is? Do you even care?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Jesus Christ that was incredibly well cited. That's a top tier comment if I've ever seen one, amazing work.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

If you just search "doctor roe v wade abortion", most of these articles are the results on the first page. Econgrad is being disingenuous about what sources they're willing to accept, so I just googled it for them in way fewer words than it took to lie about why they wouldn't take the NPR article.