this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
998 points (98.9% liked)

News

22887 readers
4923 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
 

Amber Nicole Thurman's death from an infection in 2022 is believed to be the first confirmed maternal fatality linked to post-Roe bans.

Reproductive justice advocates have been warning for more than two years that the end of Roe v. Wade would lead to surge in maternal mortality among patients denied abortion care---and that the increase was likely to be greatest among low-income women of color. Now, a new report by ProPublica has uncovered the first such verified death. A 28-year-old medical assistant and Black single mother in Georgia died from a severe infection after a hospital delayed a routine medical procedure that had been outlawed under that state's six-week abortion ban.

Amber Nicole Thurman's death, in August 2022, was officially deemed "preventable" by a state committee tasked with reviewing pregnancy-related deaths. Thurman's case is the first time a preventable abortion-related death has come to public attention since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, ProPublica's Kavitha Surana reported.

Now, “we actually have the substantiated proof of something we already knew—that abortion bans kill people,” said Mini Timmaraju, president of the abortion-rights group Reproductive Freedom for All, during a call with media. “It cannot go on.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 131 points 2 days ago (7 children)

A lot of pro-birth people argue "obviously things are different if the mother's life is in danger", but that ignores that there's often nothing obvious or definite about the line between "safe" and dangerous. Doctors are erring on the side of caution to avoid potential lawsuits and even jail time, and this is the result. People bleeding out in parking lots, suffering irreversible damage to their body, and people dying.

[–] SulaymanF 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Prior to the ban, politicians said that they feared doctors would use the “she’s in danger wink wink” defense and made it very very hard to use that defense, and as a result it’s very very hard for women to get the care they need.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 day ago

Well I guess they get dead women now.

There needs to be a group of lawyers out there with spines of steel to take on a class action lawsuit(or several) to sue the fuck out of each of the states and politicians who pushed these anti-woman laws through and they resulted in women dying or being injured by healthcare being withheld... as mandated by the laws.

These soulless pieces of shit only understand money, getting sued into the ground should get their fucking attention. I'd prefer jailtime, but Donald Dump shows republican shitheads don't go to jail, so I say class action lawsuit time.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I've seen pro-life folks argue that but they frame it like... "the law is fine and it's a failure of the doctors not being willing to understand the law which led to deaths" and they'll also follow that up by saying that even if women die, they're saving more lives by preventing abortions so it's a net positive.

I find it difficult to argue against that perspective. That is, I disagree with them but also it's hard to argue when they frame abortions as basically murder.

[–] baru 2 points 1 day ago

I've seen pro-life folks

Those people are NOT pro-life. They're anti-abortion. It would be much better to use the correct term instead of pandering to the idea that it is about saving lives.

[–] someguy3 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
  1. Do we want doctors to also be lawyers? Spend all their time reading and interpreting laws and studying case precident on every little scenario? There's a reason why these are two separate and highly trained professions. We have a healthcare problem and we want doctors to spend their time doctoring, not lawyering. Also, it's never so clear on the medical side anyway, these are judgement calls. So it will go to court and review and all that stuff. The prosecution can always find one doctor to say it wasn't necessary.

  2. This is the old is fetus life.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is the old is fetus life.

Yeah, and the problem there is that logic and science won't change someone's mind about it. It's subjective from their perspective.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Fetus is life, but contained within another life. Therefore, container's life takes precedence.

[–] Fedizen 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I think its easier to argue on premises. Why is abortion murder? The bible says life begins at first breath, etc...

Edit: In the US its fairly easy, because you just have to get them to acknowledge its a religious belief. From there its easy to say that 'well do you believe in the 1st amendment' and note that establishment of religion is forbidden. Anti abortion laws have to be grounded in reality and from there its harder to argue that fetuses are persons.

[–] Zombiepirate 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The bible also gives a magic abortion potion recipe that only works if the woman cheated, so it's pretty rich to say that God disapproves.

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife (Numbers 5)

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Plus, Jesus didn't even mention abortion once. He ordered his followers to feed the poor, but now they fight against feeding the poor and fight for causes Jesus never talked about.

I am beginning to think that true Christians are communists.

[–] p3n -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Where does the Bible say life begins at first breath? I know that is says this, "13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb." Psalm 139:13 NIV.

If I were to argue on premises, then I would start with a higher premise: Why is murder illegal? If it is my religious belief that murder is wrong, then by your argument doesn't that make homicide laws a violation of the 1st Amendment and thus unconstitutional?

[–] Fedizen 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

On a religious basis murder is legal anyway. There's not a lot of real morality in the bible without serious cherry picking. The slaughter of Jericho, for instance where everyone, even children were slaughtered. At the end of the day law is always determined by human judgement: either through discourse directly or vigorous cherry picking of contradictory statements in holy scripture.

As to life at first breath there's Genesis 2, Adam became alive at first breath. Then as Zombiepirate noted the prescription for unfaithfulness (numbers 5) is to drink a potion that causes miscarriage, indicating that even if the bible considers a fetus to be a person, it has no problem executing them for the crimes of the mother.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Do we pay doctors for their legal acumen now?

This WHO article mentions this and cites the study

Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion

[–] Burn_The_Right 13 points 1 day ago

And conservatives laughing.

[–] Maggoty 2 points 1 day ago

And when good faith legislators tried to make it easier for doctors to give care religious groups lobbied to block the fixes.

[–] Matriks404 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I am pro-life in general, but that is a good point.

[–] baru 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Pro life is not the right term. It's much better to say you're anti abortion than to pretend it's about saving lives.

[–] Matriks404 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not really. If I was anti abortion I wouldn't be proponent of it in most cases. You are making shit up.

[–] forrcaho 2 points 14 hours ago

The only assumption he's making is that, if you refer to yourself as "pro-life", you mean what everyone else in America who calls themselves "pro-life" means. It's a reasonable assumption, I mean, that's the way words work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Not even that since it doesn’t really prevent abortion or pregnancy in general. It’s just anti-choice. Or anti-woman.

[–] CoggyMcFee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you all need a new name for yourselves. It sounds absurd at this point

[–] Matriks404 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What do you mean? I am not a member of any group, and I don't know how is being pro life absurd. In fact I don't understand how being opposed to killing a baby that is a month or two away from being born without valid reason (or any other reason that is non-threatening to woman's mental or physical health after certain point of pregnancy) is that extreme.

[–] CoggyMcFee 1 points 18 hours ago

The name “pro-life” is absurd. Too far from reality

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Doctors are erring on the side of caution to avoid potential lawsuits and even jail time

I get it's risky and money is needed to survive, and prison is bad, and all, but it seems a bit hypocritical for doctors to violate their modern day version of the Hippocratic Oath.

Especially the part where it says:

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

That's a place where life-saving decisions should always transcend law, and there should be a law (since we can't go on gentleman's agreements anymore) that says as much to cut out this partisan horse shit that vacillates and trends downward every year.

Can't believe it's 2024 and our big accomplishment is that America figured out how to politicize the human body, and the uterus in particular.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

When they can is the key phrase. When the law says you can't it's no longer a doctors problem. This is 100% on the stupid politics.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I get it's risky and money is needed to survive, and prison is bad, and all, but it seems a bit hypocritical for doctors to violate their modern day version of the Hippocratic Oath.

They rationalize it by saying that they can't help anyone if they are sent to jail. It is partly true so I don't think we should blame the doctors here.

[–] PriorityMotif -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's still malpractice. Doesn't matter if it's illegal.

[–] kofe 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Which is why we're also seeing entire maternity wards shut down. Doctors can't provide care without risking being jailed or being sued for malpractice, so they just won't practice at all.

[–] PriorityMotif -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That happened to a nearby hospital where I live and it's an abortion friendly state. It's because hospitals don't make any money from it compared to other departments like surgery and cancer care where they can bill Medicaid/Medicare out the ass.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Ah, we can blame capitalism for that one.