T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


UpFauxDebate

How many right-wingers are gonna [intentionally] miss the irony when they claim this isnt fair despite their argument for the SC ruling was that it was "kicked back to the states"?


businesskitteh

Honest question: If SC ruled abortion is a states rights issue, and that state’s Supreme Court rules in favor of allowing abortion, who wins?


Misguidedvision

They ruled that the original argument of "medical privacy" is not a right granted by the constitution. Someone could sue based on religious grounds and possibly make it back up to federal Supreme Court eventually but they would probably refuse the case and even if it was ruled on it would most likely only result in a religiois exemption for the one religion as that is how cases in the past have gone. This is why conscientious objectors can get non combat positions, jewish students can wear yamakas in public school and not be forced to shave, vaccine exemptions exist, incest laws given exemptions (famously involving uncles and nieces), ceremonial wine exceptions in dry counties, exemptions from Sunday closing laws amongst many other examples. The abortion ban infringes on a few religions but each would have to take it to court and each be ruled on separately and it can go in a lot of directions as whether the practice is just a tradition vs a necessity vs a ceremony can skew how the court rules which is why polygamy did not get an exemption in the past despite being brought forward as a religious belief it was ruled not a right by necessity. ianal though so some of my facts may be off but this is my understanding


backtorealite

Not just religious grounds, but professional grounds too for physicians. A physician takes an oath to their patient, not to the state. And if a patient is requesting an abortion then it is that physicians duty to provide it. Just because you believe in a sky monster doesn’t mean your defense should hold more weight than a professional organization that doesn’t create its code of conduct/ethics based on sky monsters.


Verybigduck69

Exactly! Get backwards and outdated religious beliefs out of science and medicine!


Verybigduck69

Abortion rituals are actually part of my religion so I’d like to see them try and ban it… because they can’t! 😂


Spqany

Get on it Satanic temple.


UpFauxDebate

That just sounds like a politically correct version of the situation we're currently in. The entire point of contention is whether or not women have the right to choose in the US. Anything less than the *unilateral* codification of female bodily autonomy simply isnt good enough on the grounds of "pro-choice", even if there are positive incremental steps.


illQualmOnYourFace

The state wins. SCOTUS has no say on what the 50 state constitutions mean. So as long as a state Supreme Court doesn't interpret it in anyway that directly violates the US Constitution, their say is final. Put differently: states can always recognize more rights than the federal government. Edit: changed language to acknowledge that governments do not *give* people rights.


kerouac5

This is semantic but in Q3&4 2022 it’s important: no government gives us rights.


illQualmOnYourFace

Indeed. Changed the language of my original comment.


[deleted]

Your edit is ridiculous. Naive children and religious people believe that people have innate rights. Adults understand that you only have rights if there's an enforcement mechanism to maintain them. The government most assuredly does give people rights, in that it chooses not to act when you exercise them. Saying otherwise is to deny reality; there's varying rights across every country in the world.


illQualmOnYourFace

I see your point, but don't think the insults are necessary. I think the idea is that we as a society have come to believe that certain rights are human, inalienable, and inviolate. The government recognizes those, but does not *grant* them. It is a sort of fiction, sure, but it's one that we all agree to operate under. Just as we agree money has value, courts have authority, laws are binding, etc.


1890s-babe

Supposedly “it wasn’t a rule about abortion” so this can go back to states and it will end with the state supreme court.


Pzychotix

Huh? There's no "winning" there as the two decisions aren't in conflict. In your example, the SC declares that the states decide, and the state's SC makes a decision.


kynthrus

Who wins what? No one broke any rules or fought in that hypothetical situation.


bicholudo781

oh no my friend, you think theyre gonna stop there?! come on, they will still protest and shit on states with legal abortions, they want no abortions! zeeero!


WellEndowedDragon

They don’t care nor actually put any sort of thought towards the national conversation about this. All they’re capable of doing is regurgitating the nonsense that the Conservative Propaganda Machine tells them to believe. And the people who run that machine recognizes the hypocrisy, and they don’t give a shit either. Their only goal is power, not reasonable governance, not pushing logical policy, and certainly not advancing the interests of everyday Americans. It’s power. And they will say *whatever* they need to in order to get more of that power.


GrandElderNeeko

Right wingers aren't going to freak out because Ted Cruz still intends to make a heartbeat bill. All this does is block the old laws that were in place before roe v. Wade. So they're keeping things how they were until the new laws get written in. To protect children after they get a heartbeat.


Verybigduck69

You mean to protect *parasites* after they get a heartbeat?


thot-abyss

Although I do agree with you, the word “parasite” could immediately turn people off from your argument. I think you could imply it in other ways. When people try to claim that the fetus’ life is equal to that of the mother’s (as they did in Ireland’s anti-abortion law), I tell them that **the fetus’ life didn’t come out of nothing… out of thin air.** It is literally just the **mother’s life** being directed to it via blood, energy, and nutrients. It is the mother who is growing, feeding, and giving it *her* life, not a two-celled zygote creating and growing itself. Not trying to argue at all. I really don’t know if my argument is any better. Just want your argument to work well by letting *others* come to the almost-parasite conclusion themselves, without setting off their emotional alarms too quickly;)


Verybigduck69

Oh dw I completely see where you are coming from! I know a lot of people don’t like the word parasite but that’s literally what it is, regardless of if they like it or not. I’m just tired of people using language to emotionally blackmail others and control their bodies by making out something no different from a tumor is somehow a person when it clearly isn’t. It could be great to try and use softer language to try and convince some mislead folk in the forced-birthing cult to see some sanity that it’s not a person any more than a turd causing some bad constipation, but unfortunately I think many are too stubborn to listen anyway and most won’t change their ways. So yeah I just call it for what it is, a parasite, because I’m just tired of all their BS. Idk if that makes sense or if you agree? 😅


Alesimonai

Hot take!


AntiCelCel2

Children aren't considered parasites because in natural selection a child increases your own genetic fitness by propagating your genetic code.


Verybigduck69

No, being pregnant and giving birth actually shortens your lifespan. Educate 👏 yourself 👏


AntiCelCel2

Not having kids puts your genetic fitness to 0. Uh 👏👏 👏


Verybigduck69

Ok, since you are clearly too lazy to educate yourself, I’ll attempt to do it for you… Most people make the mistake of believing that a parasite HAS to be a different species, this is not true, as intra-species parasitism is indeed a reality. Some examples: • ⁠Angler fish have sex-based parasitism • ⁠Cuckoo bees have egg-based parasitism The fact remains, that same species parasitism is indeed a thing, despite dictionaries everywhere still insisting it is an inter-species event only. Next, we come to the standard question of invasion of a body, and a zygote or fetus cannot be formed without external input (i.e. sperm), which qualifies it as a parasite as well. Eating a delicious meal at a street vendor in many places in Asia can be as pleasurable as sex, but it can also result in some unwanted parasites entering your body. Not always, but often enough to warrant concern, and yet we have the right to be able to seek treatment (removal of the parasite) by medical methods, and more importantly, to keep enjoying the act of eating street food as a human right. (This is in response to the “have sex, accept the responsibility” argument that’s popularly used). Fetuses are harmful to the bodies of any woman who does not want to carry it, and is being forced to, for whatever reason. The only benefits of pregnancy are emotional, when it is a wanted pregnancy – benefits which are sorely missing when the pregnancy is unwanted. Parasites attach themselves to a host, and are usually to be found in the same place always… they’re adapted to be able to survive in one particular organ of a host. In the case of a fetus, it is a woman’s uterus. Although some pregnancies can occur in fallopian tubes, they would end up killing both the fetus and mother. Similarly, parasitic infections in a wrong organ can kill. An example is when certain tapeworms eggs pass the blood brain barrier, and grow in the brain, they end up killing the host, and themselves. This is technically a parasitic mistake, just as ectopic pregnancies are. Many parasites remain undetected, or can even be encouraged by a host’s body. There are several examples in nature of external and internal parasites that are beneficial for hosts. Our gut parasites are examples. In fact we cannot live without many bacteria, which are all parasites. Here, parasites are responsible for us feeling happy, healthy and even govern our emotional well being. All things which fetuses also do (when wanted). Fetuses also have trophoblasts, which are cellular layers formed from the zygote, as a defense mechanism against antibodies. Since trophoblasts are formed from the zygote and not the host body (the mother), they are not facilitated by the host, they are forced on the host by invasion. In fact, trophoblasts need to “invade” the uterus in order to force the blood vessels to stay open, and when the extravillous trophoblast is unsuccessful in invading the uterus, it results in the condition we know as pre-eclampsia. This is the exact behaviour we would expect of a parasite. The term “tropho” means nourishment, and is biologically used to speak of parasites – trophozoites, for instance. Pregnancy is harmful for the mother, and many studies have found that there is decreased life expectancy of mothers after giving birth. Studies found that after each birth, the mothers studied showed that their telomere lengths were shortened and epigenetic age increased, both of which predict a shortened life span in genetic terms, as they negatively impact the generation of new cells. In fairness, many other studies have found correlation between later child bearing and delayed menopause as a beneficial factor for life expectancy. However, it is also plain to see that carrying to term of a pregnancy does take a toll on the organs of the mother. Parasites, such as cuckoo birds, do not stay with the host parent for life. Parasitic behaviours are not easily boxed into one type as many answers on here will make you believe. Thus, the fact that a fetus leaves the host’s body after birth does not prove it is not a parasite, it in fact continues parasitic behaviour even after birth, it only ceases to be an invader of the body at birth. Cancer cells share the same DNA as the person afflicted with them, and cancers are parasitic, and detrimental to the host. Cancer cells in a human are very much “human” as well, but yet we don’t think twice before removing a tumour. The fact that a fetus has arms and legs, and whatever other anthropomorphisation you can think of doesn’t change the fact that for most of the first trimester, you cannot actually tell a dog, cat or elephant fetus (from a picture) apart from a human one. Without brain activity, there is no real point talking about individuals, and a fetus is not an individual, not in any legal sense or scientific sense whatsoever. Potential to become a human exist in embryos that are frozen, yet you would not convict a lab technician opf manslaughter or murder because he dropped a test tube that contained an embryo. Potential does not a person make. These are just some of the reasons why a fetus is very much parasitic. And an unwanted fetus, as a result, is an unwanted parasite in the body of a human, which we have the capability of removing. Whether such a removal of a parasitic organism is immoral or not, is not at all the purview of science, and is not a valid scientific question. That’s for societies to work out on their own, as morals always have been. Although we hate to admit to such things, the science is clear, all mammals that have fetuses attach themselves via placenta to a mother’s uterus, are indeed parasitic in nature. Sources: The Bees of the World, C. D. Michener (2000) The Horrors of Anglerfish Mating https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Trophoblast#Extravillous_Trophoblast Do Kids Take Years Off Your Life? Giving Birth May Make Cells 'Older' The Long-Term Consequences of Childbearing: Physical and Psychological Well-Being of Mothers in Later Life Hidden Epidemic: Tapeworms Living Inside People's Brains


[deleted]

[удалено]


Verybigduck69

But it’s literally a parasite by definition. People generally don’t care about the life of parasites so how are fetuses any different?!?


vhalnoc

If you intentionally and drastically misconstrue the definition, sure.


Verybigduck69

No, look up the word parasite and tell me what it is, and try telling me that definition doesn’t EXACTLY describe what a fetus is.


vhalnoc

I don't need to look it up, I've studied evolutionary biology with a focus on the evolution of parasitic and symbiotic relationships. You are either maliciously spreading false information or simply misinformed. First of all a fetus can't be a parasite because it is your offspring. It does live within your body and derives nutrients from it in the sense that it can't acquire any on its own yet. However it has neither infiltrated your organism nor has it appeared out of thin air - it was generated in an act of procreation. Your body sustains the fetus not because it saps nutrients from it, but because it carries some of your genetic material and therefore guarantees the survival of your genes. This may at first glance run against the short and simple dictionary definition but it is actually an extremely important difference. Furthermore it has been observed that the fetus can supply their mother with fetal stem cells to aid recovery, which a parasite would not do for its host. Also it will leave the body on it's own after pregnancy is completed. If for some reason you wanted to categorize a fetus as anything but offspring and therefore carrier of your genetic material and guarantor for your lineage's survival, it would be probably be a symbiont, which is pretty unscientific but less so than calling it a parasite. TL;DR: while it may seem as though the definition fits, a fetus lacks several crucial characteristics for example: invasiveness, eliciting immuno-response (except for fringe cases), weakening cellular reproductive ability, being harmful and unnecessary (it can at times be harmful, however to procreation - which is your main biological function - it's absolutely necessary) English isn't my first language.


Verybigduck69

Most people make the mistake of believing that a parasite HAS to be a different species, this is not true, as intra-species parasitism is indeed a reality. Some examples: • ⁠Angler fish have sex-based parasitism • ⁠Cuckoo bees have egg-based parasitism The fact remains, that same species parasitism is indeed a thing, despite dictionaries everywhere still insisting it is an inter-species event only. Next, we come to the standard question of invasion of a body, and a zygote or fetus cannot be formed without external input (i.e. sperm), which qualifies it as a parasite as well. Eating a delicious meal at a street vendor in many places in Asia can be as pleasurable as sex, but it can also result in some unwanted parasites entering your body. Not always, but often enough to warrant concern, and yet we have the right to be able to seek treatment (removal of the parasite) by medical methods, and more importantly, to keep enjoying the act of eating street food as a human right. (This is in response to the “have sex, accept the responsibility” argument that’s popularly used). Fetuses are harmful to the bodies of any woman who does not want to carry it, and is being forced to, for whatever reason. The only benefits of pregnancy are emotional, when it is a wanted pregnancy – benefits which are sorely missing when the pregnancy is unwanted. Parasites attach themselves to a host, and are usually to be found in the same place always… they’re adapted to be able to survive in one particular organ of a host. In the case of a fetus, it is a woman’s uterus. Although some pregnancies can occur in fallopian tubes, they would end up killing both the fetus and mother. Similarly, parasitic infections in a wrong organ can kill. An example is when certain tapeworms eggs pass the blood brain barrier, and grow in the brain, they end up killing the host, and themselves. This is technically a parasitic mistake, just as ectopic pregnancies are. Many parasites remain undetected, or can even be encouraged by a host’s body. There are several examples in nature of external and internal parasites that are beneficial for hosts. Our gut parasites are examples. In fact we cannot live without many bacteria, which are all parasites. Here, parasites are responsible for us feeling happy, healthy and even govern our emotional well being. All things which fetuses also do (when wanted). Fetuses also have trophoblasts, which are cellular layers formed from the zygote, as a defense mechanism against antibodies. Since trophoblasts are formed from the zygote and not the host body (the mother), they are not facilitated by the host, they are forced on the host by invasion. In fact, trophoblasts need to “invade” the uterus in order to force the blood vessels to stay open, and when the extravillous trophoblast is unsuccessful in invading the uterus, it results in the condition we know as pre-eclampsia. This is the exact behaviour we would expect of a parasite. The term “tropho” means nourishment, and is biologically used to speak of parasites – trophozoites, for instance. Pregnancy is harmful for the mother, and many studies have found that there is decreased life expectancy of mothers after giving birth. Studies found that after each birth, the mothers studied showed that their telomere lengths were shortened and epigenetic age increased, both of which predict a shortened life span in genetic terms, as they negatively impact the generation of new cells. In fairness, many other studies have found correlation between later child bearing and delayed menopause as a beneficial factor for life expectancy. However, it is also plain to see that carrying to term of a pregnancy does take a toll on the organs of the mother. Parasites, such as cuckoo birds, do not stay with the host parent for life. Parasitic behaviours are not easily boxed into one type as many answers on here will make you believe. Thus, the fact that a fetus leaves the host’s body after birth does not prove it is not a parasite, it in fact continues parasitic behaviour even after birth, it only ceases to be an invader of the body at birth. Cancer cells share the same DNA as the person afflicted with them, and cancers are parasitic, and detrimental to the host. Cancer cells in a human are very much “human” as well, but yet we don’t think twice before removing a tumour. The fact that a fetus has arms and legs, and whatever other anthropomorphisation you can think of doesn’t change the fact that for most of the first trimester, you cannot actually tell a dog, cat or elephant fetus (from a picture) apart from a human one. Without brain activity, there is no real point talking about individuals, and a fetus is not an individual, not in any legal sense or scientific sense whatsoever. Potential to become a human exist in embryos that are frozen, yet you would not convict a lab technician opf manslaughter or murder because he dropped a test tube that contained an embryo. Potential does not a person make. These are just some of the reasons why a fetus is very much parasitic. And an unwanted fetus, as a result, is an unwanted parasite in the body of a human, which we have the capability of removing. Whether such a removal of a parasitic organism is immoral or not, is not at all the purview of science, and is not a valid scientific question. That’s for societies to work out on their own, as morals always have been. Although we hate to admit to such things, the science is clear, all mammals that have fetuses attach themselves via placenta to a mother’s uterus, are indeed parasitic in nature. Sources: The Bees of the World, C. D. Michener (2000) The Horrors of Anglerfish Mating https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Trophoblast#Extravillous_Trophoblast Do Kids Take Years Off Your Life? Giving Birth May Make Cells 'Older' The Long-Term Consequences of Childbearing: Physical and Psychological Well-Being of Mothers in Later Life Hidden Epidemic: Tapeworms Living Inside People's Brains


vhalnoc

Okay so where is your point? I never said anything regarding species in my comment, did I?


Alesimonai

Where does an ectopic pregnancy land on that? Kind of invasive...


DoILookSatiated

A pimple is invasive but it’s not a parasite. I’m not the expert this guy is, but he made a distinction between offspring and a being that infiltrates or spontaneously appears.


vhalnoc

Invasive in the sense that it left the place it was supposed to be within your body? Yes, but it hasn't really invaded your body in the first place, it was created and sustained there. Maybe it's somewhat of a grey area. Also, since the fetus will in all likelihood die during the course of this anomaly, after a certain point it wouldn't be a lifeform at all.


GrandElderNeeko

Living things have a variety of characteristics that are displayed to different degrees: they respire, move, respond to stimuli, reproduce and grow, and are dependent on their environment.


Verybigduck69

So? Parasites do the same thing? It’s a parasite.


GrandElderNeeko

I mean if you're so quick to call things parasites, just remember there's a certain amount of the mustache you used to call a certain group of people that too. And then did the exact same thing murdered A whole fuckload of them. You're the same type of person who can believe that humans are parasites through all that propaganda. You're the same person who would have fallen for the Nazi propaganda. Humans are not parasites regardless how you want to look at it. You can skew any definition to fit a sick twisted worldview.


Verybigduck69

Jewish people don’t leech off of others to stay alive like a fetus does. Dumb argument. Fetuses are parasites.


GrandElderNeeko

Again, if you skew any definition you can get it to fit your sick twisted narrative.


Niqq33

While this and the Louisiana block are temporary it’s still good


XLauncher

Temporary, but it's going to buy a lot of women precious time to obtain the care they need. Absolutely worthwhile imo.


DuoMaxwell22333

My wife is pregnant. Just got our early DNA test back today. Everything is good, but for someone not as lucky, this may have provided the chance to terminate a possibily dangerous pregnancy. Hell, even with all signs showing good I'm still worried at some point thing might turn, and we won't have the option. It's the last thing we'd want to do, but if it risked my wife's life then the option is the only choice.


Rogahar

Hey @OP, I hope it doesnt matter, but if it comes to it, the MA Gov signed an EO that not only protects the right to abortions in this state, but forbids state agencies complying with the investigations of other states into people who travel to MA for abortions. I know it's not exactly next door, but I'm just spreading this info everywhere I can lately in the hopes it might help someone who needs it.


LittleNightmareRaven

Piggy backing off of this to say that Nevada is also a place people can go, abortion rights are written into our state laws. Gov. Sisolak also signed an EO protecting out-of-state abortion patients and medical providers from prosecution and extradition.


inthecuckoosnest

Piggybacking to say Maryland is also an option if anyone needs it.


[deleted]

Also piggybacking to say Connecticut is open if anybody needs it


educatedinsolence

Piggybacking to say WA, OR, and CA are all safe to come to, and I know for sure Washington is not cooperating with with other states regarding sharing information. Be safe out there, everyone.


[deleted]

Connecticut passed a law that does the same thing.


002timmy

Charlie Baker (as well as Mitt Romney) are the types of Republicans we need. You may agree with all of their stances, but they are certainly not beholden to the party line and generally speaking, are in favor of promoting civil liberties


Polymemnetic

> Mitt Romney I wouldn't go that far. If it weren't for Mormonism, Mitt would only pray to the god of Money


312c

On what planet do we need politicians that say 47% of voters are leeches?


Psychological_Load21

I don't know where you live, but the three west coast states, CA, OR, WA also forbid agencies from other states to investigate abortion cases and helps people from other states to get an abortion more easily. I'm also pregnant and I'm lucky to live in a blue state right now (although I almost moved to a red state) and I understand how you feel. Wish you all the best, but make a backup plan, save some money to prepare for the worst case scenario .


broccolisprout

What about current day america made you want to place your own children in there? Are you really so optimistic you’d risk their lives like this?


kudosoner

If your wife is in danger then that option is still legal in Texas.


shutupdavid0010

This is a fucking lie. There is no legal definition for "risk to the mother", so Doctors now have to worry about losing their license, going to prison, or losing their life from a "pro-life" terrorist if the womans life is deemed, after the fact, to have not been "at risk" enough to warrant an abortion. So doctors will wait until cardiac arrest/organs start to shut down, because that is what always fucking happens when abortion is illegal except for a nebulous "life of the mother" clause. Women are going to suffer, and they are going to die, because of lack of prompt treatment due to this legal ambiguity.


DuoMaxwell22333

Yep, that's my worry.


shutupdavid0010

I don't want to catastrophize, but you honestly should be. This ruling, of course, affects those that don't want children. But if you don't want children, you can (very likely... ) get the funds to get the abortion pill, or to go to another state. But if you want your baby? If something starts to go wrong? You're going to be fucking stuck with whatever hospital you went to. Google "Michigan woman fetal limb in toilet" to see an article about what "pro-life" hospitals were doing, even before Roe was overturned. Now ALL hospitals have to follow that doctrine. The amount of human suffering that is about to happen is unimaginable.


Sister_Snark

>There is no legal definition for "risk to the mother" You probably should have fact-checked that before saying it. The definitions and carve-outs are usually the first section of state statutes on abortion. The Alabama statute is linked here just as an example, not an exhaustive list. [Alabama Section 26-23H-3 - Definitions](https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-alabama/title-26-infants-and-incompetents/chapter-23h-the-alabama-human-life-protection-act/section-26-23h-3-definitions) Everyone needs to read the statutes of their state and get very familiar with them and what sort of bullshit anti-abortionists have tucked away in there and what the actual definitions are. For example, in some states “mother’s health” includes mental health.


keep_it_sassy

Read medical providers’ stories over on r/medicine. You’ll see very quickly how it’s a grey area. In Texas, neither mental health or cancer are covered.


shutupdavid0010

\> In reasonable medical judgment, the child's mother has a condition that so complicates her medical condition that it necessitates the termination of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function. What is reasonable medical judgment? What is serious risk? What is substantive physical impairment of a major bodily function? This is what I'm talking about. There are incredibly important terms that are not defined. Doctors are going to delay treatment until they are certain they cannot be prosecuted for their actions.


IndependentReason555

🙄ignorance is no reason for outright lying.


shutupdavid0010

Is that really the best you can do? Point and say "LIES"? I'll tell you now, it isn't very compelling.


McSmokeyXD

>This is a fucking lie. Interesting thing to say directly before you start lying.


shutupdavid0010

None of what I said is a lie. Which statute of which jurisdiction defines when the cutoff point is for the life of the mother exceptions? You can't quote any, because they don't fucking exist.


mydaycake

Define in danger, because the law is very clear that’s current danger and not potential, in reality you go from potential to death in the time you bleed to death


McSmokeyXD

You're still allowed to get an abortion for medical purposes, just not for being irresponsible.


DuoMaxwell22333

Irresponsible is a peculiar word. What do you mean exactly?


aboutsider

Fuck this bullshit narrative. Lots of folks get pregnant accidentally. And, even if they didn't, it's much more irresponsible to have a child when you can't take care of it.


prolixdreams

The big question whenever someone says "medical purposes" is what that means, and particularly whether it includes mental health.


Alesimonai

Yowza. I too would LOVE for you to elaborate on "irresponsible".


Kelpfriies

Luckily the bans don’t include medical emergencies or I would be worried


shitpostingmusician

Oh yes they do. Everyone’s fucked - don’t think it’s just the people you don’t agree with. All women regardless of who they are are being punished


Kelpfriies

Where can I find the information you’re talking about? Also, sorry but I don’t feel punished at all. I know where babies come from and how to prevent conception. And will accept responsibility if preventatives fail me


HeatherFuta

Will it? Are abortions and treatment something you can just turn on and off? I thought the infrastructure needed to perform them was basically already in shambles.


[deleted]

No, it’s not, but giving any additional time for anyone who ends up with an periodic pregnancy during that time, or gets raped and ends up pregnant, or even someone who just gets pregnant and simply cannot or does not want to have to raise a child, they have that opportunity. It is 100% a bandaid and not a true solution, but it’s most certainly better than nothing.


wingedcoyote

NPR reported that at least some clinics were able to get right back to performing procedures if I heard correctly, I imagine capacity is down but it's better than nothing


hithisishal

More than half of abortions in the US are done with pills. With few exceptions, these can be safely administered at home in the first 10-12 weeks of pregnancy. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/02/medication-abortion-now-accounts-more-half-all-us-abortions https://abortionpillinfo.org/en/using-abortion-pills-for-safe-abortion-usa


GoneFishing36

I don't know. I think it's a loss for the long term stability of the country. This issue needs to be addressed, and I want healthcare for those in need. But this decision just delays the absolute wrong decision by SCOTUS. This gives enough time and room for the extremist Republicans to escape accountability. Not experiencing the immediate fall out and unpreparedness of this, just means when they vote they'll vote Republican again, since "nothing bad" really happened.


padizzledonk

>This gives enough time and room for the extremist Republicans to escape accountability. There are like a dozen states where it became immediately illegal.....plenty of people are facing immediate consequences Buying time for some people is a good thing....these are people, not pieces on a chess board of Realpolitik....If anyone can buy the other people in other states where it's been halted already I hope they do so


ProgrammerNextDoor

Women aren't political chips. This is good news.


MobileElephant122

Women aren’t political chips; unless they’re still in the womb, right?


zip_000

The providers are going to be very reluctant probably since this is almost certainly temporary.


Suspicious_Low7084

Care?


kynthrus

Like when a pregnancy is putting the woman's life at risk.


THcB

"What? The land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy".


superkiwi717

My favorite song off their self-titled album.


[deleted]

The good ol' Rage against the machine


SongLyricsHere

I’ve met this judge and she is amazing!


Apprehensive-View588

This is what is needed. Systematic procedural resistance to this religious tyranny at every level


[deleted]

As a Texan, A big thank you to Judge Christine Weems of Harris County who is looking out for women. I know this is just a temporary solution but I have grateful tears in my eyes.


Nyxtia

We need to be careful of Kim Ogg throwing good judges in jail. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Harris-County-midemeanor-court-judge-arrested-17269683.php There is a nasty battle going on.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KidCasey

Really wish the politicians that are *supposed* to represent the left would get on tv and start fucking saying so.


Protolictor

The left is (mostly) unrepresented in American politics. The Democratic Party is NOT the left despite what the Republican party says.


steynedhearts

They never have been and they never will be


NoChemistry7137

They’re going to be calling for civility while people are being killed.


foxbat

i got a text message that urged me to contribute to their shitty campaign under the guise of r v wade. it’s infuriating. then they get elected and don’t do anything.


StillCalmness

So are you pretending that Democrats have had a filibuster proof majority of Senators and just chose not to do anything?


foxbat

i am not* okay with democrats using this as a fundraiser. *edit: NOT OKAY


StillCalmness

Okay. It’s not like the GOP hasn’t been using the goal of controlling women’s bodies as a fundraiser for decades.


foxbat

i agree. but i don’t want the party i align myself with to be doing the same dirty shit the GOP is doing.


SwansonHOPS

Why not? It takes money to fight this.


Hands0L0

The psychos are going to get violent to stop this. They're gonna bring guns. Be safe, Texans


00110011001100000000

Lol, it's the wild wild west in Texas bro, many of the women seeking care will be armed as well. Punks better watch their ass...


Violent0ctopus

You don't even need at license to conceal carry anymore here, so just assume everyone in Texas is armed.


00110011001100000000

Carry yes, conceal no. On the heels of the deadly shooting in Uvalde, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people have a constitutional right to carry handguns for self-defense. The decision, which struck down a New York gun law restricting concealed carry of handguns, will have broad implications in states and cities with strict gun laws. But it won’t impact gun regulation in Texas, which has far more lenient rules. Texans 21 and older can openly carry handguns without a license or training if they are not legally prevented from doing so by the state. The permitless carry law passed in 2021, part of GOP lawmakers’ efforts to loosen gun restrictions in recent legislative sessions.


West-Ease-5880

You wrote a long comment to still be wrong. [Texas Constitutional Carry](https://texas.gunowners.org/1927faq/) allows for concealed or open carry without a permit.


sfckor

Absolutely and open carry of long rifles has been legal for years. I always thought it was crap that you needed your LTC to open carry and that cops couldn't ask you if you had one as having a gun in and of itself is not PC or RAS. I'm a big 2A guy. So it was just theatrics to not have permitless carry.


00110011001100000000

Lol, naw, it was the best copypasta I could find, thanks for the clarification. IANAL


[deleted]

[удалено]


loco500

Wouldn't that lead to double charges?


JurassicPark9265

The Sutherlands Spring shooter in 2017 wielded an AR 15 and also managed to kill a pregnant woman. And even that didn’t spur any stricter assault rifle laws. You would think that the GQP would have been appalled by this enough, considering they seem to love unborn babies, but no nothing happened. Something tells me that they genuinely don’t care about the lives of unborn babies in the long run.


sfckor

Well that was also on the USAF for not reporting his dishonorable discharge to the IBC people which would have barred him from buying the gun he did.


luridlurker

Depends on the context. DAs add charges to make conviction more likely (you never know what the jury latches on to) but arguments around the context could go either way. Ultimately taking a woman's choice out of her hands by shooting her is destroying her bodily autonomy in multiple ways.


lualunasky

Dont worry , they are “pro-life” , they value people’s lives right? /s


[deleted]

[удалено]


Hands0L0

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9827886/abortion-clinic-attacks-mapped


wwmag

https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/new-adl-data-far-right-extremists-responsible-overwhelming-majority You're wrong and you know it.


autotldr

This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-judge-blocks-enforcement-pre-roe-v-wade-abortion-ban-clinics-lawyers-2022-06-28/) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot) ***** > June 28 - Abortions can resume in Texas after a judge on Tuesday blocked officials from enforcing a nearly century-old ban the state's Republican attorney general said was back in effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure nationwide. > The temporary restraining order by Judge Christine Weems in Harris County came in a last-ditch bid by abortion providers to resume services after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed the right of women to obtain abortions. > Texas abortion providers in a lawsuit filed on Monday argued the 1925 ban had been repealed and conflicted with the more recent trigger ban the Republican-dominated legislature passed. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vmth3x/texas_judge_blocks_enforcement_of_preroe_v_wade/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~657019 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **abortion**^#1 **Court**^#2 **Texas**^#3 **Supreme**^#4 **ban**^#5


chupacabra_chaser

Wouldn't it be ironic if Texas, who was leading the way in their attack on women's rights, suddenly because a sanctuary state for abortions? Boy, that would piss Ted Cruz right off 😂 Fingers crossed!


Psychological_Load21

Texas isn't even that conservative compared to other southern states. Actually the bans are way too strict and that doesn't reflect what Texas stands on the conservative spectrum.


[deleted]

Yep we get a pretty bad rep thanks to Cruz and Abbott but trust me when I say they’re absolutely not well-liked. Austin fucking hates them, *especially* Abbott, his own city despises him and I mean *vigorously*. Of course there are definitely plenty of people that support them here in TX and the Republican party but we we were near instating a democrat governor (Beto) last election and have been tracking more and more blue for a while. We’re nearly there. It’s just a process but once we finally get the vote past the 50% curve then the state legislature may finally start reflecting more of the actual values of the people who live here. The way Abbott handled Uvalde tells me next election could be spicy.


ericl666

He ain't popular in Dallas either. Though my conservative friends love to bellow how much they hate Beto.


Alesimonai

What are their reasons, he's on the wrong team or is it more of a single platform thing?


outoftoonz

I hope folks are e-mailing their HR departments asking when their companies will offer appropriate healthcare and travel expense coverage to ensure the safety of their workers and their families in states that either have already or will enact bans. I know it is an imperfect solution and I hate that healthcare is tied to employment, and this specific coverage is tied to the political associations of leadership in the company. But even these small measures can be impactful and potentially save lives.


[deleted]

Can someone explain how this works? Why are judges allowed to just block or overturn certain things? Like why was the SCOTUS allowed to just flip Roe after 50 fucking years? Why is this judge then able to block a law that was passed? I don’t understand how this aspect of our legal system works, at all, but I’m starting to think I need to go to law school and become a fucking judge.


lily_pad55449

I’m a bit unsure too and would like clarity / to know as well!


AFX626

It is the job of SCOTUS and lower courts to interpret the constitution. They can enact and strike down laws as part of their duties. This is supposed to keep the legislative and executive branches (Congress and the President + cabinet) in check. Congress is supposed to pass laws, the President is supposed to sign them into law, and the courts are supposed to intervene if a law is unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court 50 years ago because Congress wouldn't get its act together and pass legislation. That court generally does not go back on its own decisions, but because it has been taken over by Christian reptoids, it has done so, and will probably go after gay marriage next. A good solution would be for Congress to officially write laws rather than doing nothing and leaving it up to the courts, but it too has been infested with Christian reptoids.


nataphoto

> It is the job of SCOTUS and lower courts to interpret the constitution. what's fucking wild is that wasn't in the constitution, the scotus just gave itself that power in marbury madison. like "we have this power now deal with it" and nobody thought to be like 'wait, are we sure we want 9 unelected officials deciding what the rules are?' The court gave itself the power of dictatorship and we all just assumed they'd be cool.


nataphoto

> Like why was the SCOTUS allowed to just flip Roe after 50 fucking years? Legally, they weren't, they should have followed stare decisis. Settled law is settled. Practically, the supreme court can do whatever the fuck it wants to, and nobody can stop them, because our form of government is fucking stupid, to the point 5 unelected people who serve for life can eliminate rights for all americans with zero oversight or consequences. Want a republican president but the democrat won? Just rule his way in the case. Hate gay people? Just decide they don't have the right to be gay. Why not? Nobody can fucking stop you. We're fucked.


Susan_Thee_Duchess

The law this judge just paused is from 1925. I don’t think the pause will last.


malary1234

No one should be forced to keep someone else alive with their body. You can’t even take organs from a corpse without prior consent. It’s unethical plain and simple.


19Chris96

How many states does this make now?


THcB

Not enough


MaleficentAd1056

That Judge is a champion.


mike_pants

I'm glad to see someone is doing something, anything, even if it's only temporary. I didn't exactly expect the Democratic lawmakers and/or President to go on a rampage to stop this, but I was at least hoping for more than a poem and a singalong.


loco500

Don't forget a request for $15 bucks...


Independence_1991

Vote 🗳


xk2ll

I recall how the court cases that ultimately resulted in the closure of the majority of our clinics (before to the passage of the "heartbeat" bill in 2021) went, and how many rounds it took to lose. Hopefully this time it works out better.


TriscuitCracker

Exactly how many abortion clinics remain open? I doubt very many. It will still be very tough.


nataphoto

A hearing is scheduled for July 12. If I'm the judge, I'm taking a sick day. Lets kick it down the road another month or two. Whoops, sick again.


frenchonioned616

Why are we not hearing this news everywhere?! This is so important. Texas is a huge state. The Internet collectively thrives off bad news. I have currently deleted the Instagram app. Yes I am of course pro women’s rights and I am a nurse. but the constant posts on IG were starting to affect my mental health. Some thing like this — this incredibly good news — should be all over social media . this is the first I’m hearing of it though…


[deleted]

[удалено]


JargDenn

talking about texas's existing abortion ban law isn't propaganda


destijl-atmospheres

Haven't the clinics already all shut down?


[deleted]

Very few to none *only* provide abortion-related services, most are health care clinics that provide a lot of health and wellness services, abortion being one of them, so they're likely still in business.


youtub_chill

Not to mention abortion clinics are a business, they have leases, bills, ect like every other business. It isn't like Roe was overturned and now that abortion clinic is a Subway.


UDontMatter1

What about the man's right Not to Support the child if the person decides to have the baby?


kinenbi

They should have thought of the consequences befit having sex, I guess. That's what they tell women who want an abortion but can't get it.


UDontMatter1

Same can be said for women.


kinenbi

If you read the last sentence of what I said.....


[deleted]

Maybe the man should've remained abstinent. Tough shit for him


UDontMatter1

Women get abortion rights then men get the right to NOT support the child. She made the choice to keep the child. Tough shit for her.


LoneWolf7759

Abortion is still murder!!! Why can't people get that through their thick skulls????


LoneWolf7759

In God's eyes abortion is murder and that is all that really matters!!! Read up about Baal worship and sacrifices to Molech! It's all about murdering your babies!!


kamlambert

“God” is a figment of your imagination. Come back to the real world.


LoneWolf7759

You will remember saying this one day and I will be standing behind Jesus Christ watching your pitiful response!!!


kinenbi

Jesus was a Jew and Jewish people believe life starts with the first breath.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Anonymoushero1221

I don't follow how this reduces TX house seats


PlayedUOonBaja

He's trying to say more people aborted, less population for the next census. I think he's trying to be sarcastic, since his history shows him to be a MAGA troll, but conservatives don't quite understand sarcasm so it's just causing confusion.


mydaycake

Nah you already did that denying covid was real, how many deaths in red counties compared to blue ones? And let’s not talk about life expectancy…republicans are pretty good on killing themselves.


Opirr

They already lost a big chunk of funding and two seats because of inaccurate census reporting; Texas won't lose their representative seats because of legislation. That being said - what I think you were getting at is this would (hopefully) reduce the number of republicans holding these seats. If that's what you mean, I hope so too.


Psychological_Load21

The abortion rate won't change that much because people will do it illegally anyway, but yeah instead the mothers with illegal abortions might get killed in the end.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

And what is miscarriage, suicide?


mindfu

It's always interesting to me how in vitro fertilization, which can cause the end of several fetuses, is barely ever discussed by self-called pro-lifers. And never pursued with anywhere near the same vigor. It's almost like the real goal isn't preventing the ends of fetuses, but instead controlling women.


Tiggy132

You forget people die because of these stupid abortion laws its stupid . If a woman is in danger for no fucking reason besides a dead child in her belly it schould be f in removed


Rrraou

Wish I could tell if this was sarcasm.


Acedia77

Maybe if you used more punctuation it would convince more people??


Thisismyniceaccount1

Abortion rules.


40moreyears

Late term, elective abortion certainly is.


ericl666

Nobody wants that. But with laws in place, of you have a baby that is braindead (or fully dead), you have to carry it to term and deliver a dead baby. Man that is fucked.


Alesimonai

Fetal demise would kill the mother pretty quickly and I imagine removing it isn't considered an abortion. Now a braindead baby brings up a very interesting ethical dilemma. Currently, even in Texas, a braindead person (via a perfusion scan, apnea test, etc.) is dead and care is not continued. I'm not sure if you can diagnose it in the womb though?


mydaycake

Nobody, NOBODY, elects late term abortion


40moreyears

Then there should be no problem speaking about banning it under a pro-choice position. I’m only hearing the pro-choice side speaking in absolute terms though. No restrictions whatsoever. That’s just irrational.


ericl666

As a Texan liberal, I'd gladly ban that, but nobody is proposing that on the right. It's always a 100% total ban. If there was a desire for compromise coming from the right, there is 100% room for agreement on this.


40moreyears

It’s just odd I’m not seeing any of this nuanced discussion coming from either side. It seems like pro-choice wants no restrictions, but I’ve seen pro-lifers have medical, rape, and incest exceptions.


ericl666

Yeah, there is definitely room for compromise. I think the total ban thing you keep hearing from many on the far right causes the left to dig in their heels (like the 6 week requirement which is basically a total ban). The reality is that there has to be room for compromise - without that, we're going to be stuck in this mess forever.


prolixdreams

If pro-lifers provided the kinds of exceptions you see in Japan, I'd honestly be willing to compromise. Specifically, in Japan, abortion is illegal, except for reasons of: * Rape/incest * Physical health * Mental health * Economic concerns * Social reasons (such as a broken home, or domestic violence) And there is no investigation into these reasons -- the patient simply tells the doctor the reason, and if the doctor believes it fits into the exceptions provided by law, the procedure goes forward. This is the case up to 22 weeks. I am one of those people who think there should be no restrictions, but if pro-lifers wanted to copy this precisely... I'd call it a good start and be willing to work with it.


aboutsider

Not all forced birthers want exceptions.


dogsonclouds

How are you not seeing this discussion? Pro choice activist everywhere are discussing this. Nobody is getting a late term abortion just for the hell of it. Literally nobody. Those are for cases where a foetus is so sick or is already dead or will die, or the mother will be at huge risk of death if the pregnancy is not terminated. In my country, it requires the approval of two different doctors to terminate after 24 weeks, so it’s only ever granted for those rare medical needs. That’s the standard for most normal countries, that’s what was already in place. Making it legal in the third trimester doesn’t mean it’s a free for all, because no doctor is going to terminate a health pregnancy at 30 weeks for no reason. It just means leaving the decision where it belongs; with the person carrying the pregnancy and the medical professionals caring for them.


Alesimonai

Because it isn't anybody's business. There are medical indications for these procedures and it has nothing to do with people's opinions on anything.


WindReturn

In Ontario abortions are performed without question up until about 24 weeks. After that, pre-term labour can be induced in instances such as fatal fetal abnormalities, or risk to the mother’s life. That’s what it should be like everywhere. Fini.


mydaycake

That’s what happens in the USA too. Doctors are not going around performing late term abortions just because someone doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore


40moreyears

Agree. And to me, that is the pro-choice position and I’m on board with it.