This legitimizes the rest of the restrictions by providing them a "well see we allowed actually needed abortions so all the other bans are fine" out for future challenges. Kangaroo's gonna kanga.
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
65 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
2799 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Who the fuck cares? One state that misrepresented their intentions doesn't help the other 49 under their initial fuckstorm of trying to unravel Roe v Wade.
If it's not universal for all, it's not acceptable. We shouldn't have people stealing away to other states to have basic healthcare like they are bootleggers in the 20's, or aren't capable of making their own fucking healthcare decisions.
This is still bullshit.
"Emergency abortions" still give the forced-birthers too much leeway to decide when the mother's life is at risk. A woman should not literally be septic and her organs shutting down before she gets the care she needs.
Can they un-ring this bell? IDK
Not without un-federalising. Given that generally, red states are net receivers of cash and blue states are net payors, that seems unlikely - TX rhetoric be damned.
Not that I’d begrudge Texas taking Abbot and ~Costello~ Paxton and kindly fucking right off, nor would I vote to spill one drop of American blood to keep them by force, of course
But I believe that die is long cast regardless.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Biden administration had sued Idaho, arguing that hospitals must provide abortions to stabilize pregnant patients in rare emergency cases when their health is at serious risk.
Several women have since needed medical airlifts out of state in cases in which abortion is routine treatment to avoid infection, hemorrhage and other dire health risks, Idaho doctors have said.
Already, reports of pregnant women being turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked following the high court’s 2022 ruling overturning the constitutional right to abortion, according to federal documents obtained by The Associated Press.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit came under a federal law that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide stabilizing care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay.
Nearly all hospitals accept Medicare, so emergency room doctors in Idaho and other states with bans would have to provide abortions if needed to stabilize a pregnant patient and avoid serious health risks like loss of reproductive organs, the Justice Department argued.
Idaho argued that its exception for a patient’s life covers dire health circumstances and that the Biden administration misread the law to circumvent the state ban and expand abortion access.
The original article contains 567 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!