this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
830 points (99.5% liked)

politics

19244 readers
1760 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
 

Summary

Republican-led states with near-total abortion bans are delaying or halting maternal mortality reviews, raising concerns about efforts to conceal rising deaths.

Texas, where maternal deaths rose 56% from 2019 to 2022, refused to review 2022-2023 cases, citing a backlog.

Investigations found multiple preventable deaths tied to abortion bans, such as Porsha Ngumenzi, who died after being denied miscarriage care.

Georgia fired its entire Maternal Mortality Review Committee after leaks about preventable deaths.

Critics argue these actions aim to suppress evidence linking abortion bans to maternal fatalities, delaying accountability for years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 267 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Texas ... refused to review 2022-2023 cases, citing a backlog.

"There's too many cases of maternal death, so we're just going to stop looking at them."

Good job, Texas.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 weeks ago

Like the hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits that piled up over the decades.

Boxes about the size of a hardcover book each held evidence of a reported sexual assault – dried swabs of saliva and semen and blood, strands of hair, debris scraped from under fingernails. Each was collected from a person, most of them women and girls, during an hours long exam. And each was shelved without being processed for DNA. The evidence crowded storerooms, tangible proof of law enforcement’s failure to support victims and hold rapists accountable.

Testing the kits was supposed to be the first step in righting that wrong. In some places that received federal grants, not even that happened.

At least a dozen grant recipients carved out exceptions to testing, leaving kits unprocessed for a second time. In one California county, officials boasted they had cleared their backlog, but only after deeming more than half of their kits ineligible for testing.

In many cases, officials have done little beyond sending the kits to a lab, reviewing the results and again closing the files. In Maryland, according to a state report, some law enforcement agencies have shown “significant reluctance” to reopen investigations and have even stated outright that they are disregarding DNA matches.

What’s more, some officials all but abandoned the idea of providing victims answers about what happened to their rape kits or apologies for how long testing took. One Kansas police agency has tried to reach just 17 victims from roughly 1,100 sexual assault kits. An official there said there are instances where DNA testing has identified the names of suspects for the first time but the victims have not been told, because officials don’t think their cases can be prosecuted.

[–] [email protected] 140 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It worked for Florida with COVID.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago

"Lalalala can't hear you "

People suck sometimes, so glad I live in a very blue area with good community

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah I was about to say, pretty on brand.