this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
438 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19223 readers
2866 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
 

The court ruled that the lower court made a mistake in ruling that the woman, Kate Cox, who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, was entitled to a medical exception.

...

Ms. Cox asked the lower court for approval after she learned that her fetus had a fatal condition, and after several trips to the emergency room.

In short, the life or health exemptions to abortion bans in Republican-controlled states are meaningless.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Veedem 162 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Women are screwed in states like Texas. This woman isn’t someone who was careless and doesn’t want to live with consequences. This is as clear cut and in line with the supposed exceptions as can be. She’s very fortunate that she can afford to go elsewhere. There are many woman who don’t have that same option. Absolutely horrible.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Hopefully, she can afford to stay out of Texas. Her life and safety are at risk, as well as legal jeopardy from these shenanigans.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago

Yeah, if I were her I would never go back to Texas. Who knows if some jackass is going to try to make their career off of imprisoning her for getting an out of state abortion?

[–] Naja_Kaouthia 39 points 1 year ago

She’s welcome in Colorado. The right to an abortion is a state law and we have some upcoming ballot initiatives to make abortion access a right in the state constitution.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sadly that's still a win for texas. One less vote against them.

[–] TwoGems 7 points 1 year ago

It's not like we could get anyone to vote anyway. They had the opportunity to show up and didn't.

Just 45.7% of 17.7 million voters showed up.

[–] someguy3 153 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I predict the same shenanigans for exceptions for rape. "You were raped? Ok let's wait for the conviction. It took too long and now you can't get an abortion? Teehee."

[–] asteriskeverything 42 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Fuck, it can even be a struggle for a woman to even be believed that she was raped. Especially in right leaning counties/cities/states. And also fight for an exception? I do wonder have any women been given a medical exception?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Chainweasel 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I imagine it'll be more like:
"You were raped? Do you have a photo of yourself in the outfit you were wearing when you were raped? We need see if you were asking for it or not before we make that decision"

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Did you orgasm? It's a sin if you were raped and enjoyed it." Wait, that's for church.

[–] Chainweasel 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If there was a line between the church and the state we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid 27 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The idea that a woman has to prove to legal satisfaction that she was raped in order to get an abortion is so fucking sickening. There shouldn't be the same standard for a raped woman to get an abortion than there is to convict her rapist.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rockSlayer 79 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm curious how the "but there's exceptions!" Crowd will try to spin this

[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They won’t, everything is working. Why would they spin “success?”

[–] FlyingSquid 6 points 1 year ago

Exactly. The same way they're not spinning calls for a national abortion ban after years of "leave it up to the states."

[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (3 children)

For those wondering, the State’s Supreme Court is hardlining the Legislative language here.

While I don’t know medicine enough to give real percentages, the lower Judge ruled the abortion could continue because there was like a 70% or something chance of dying and the letter of the Texas law requires something along the lines of a 95% chance of death.

Again I don’t think one can attribute hard numbers, but the Supreme Court is saying that the laws indicate that only when death is pretty much assured can an abortion happen, which is a completely insane stance. And in this case death was only mostly going to happen, not absolutely going to happen.

Roughly speaking, the Texas Supreme Court basically said that the person needs to be closer to death than the defendant in this case. How much closer? The Court isn’t super clear, but clearly much more closer to death than this person was.

Because clearly taking pain and suffering into account is just beside the point at this point for Texas.

[–] TallonMetroid 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because clearly taking pain and suffering into account is just beside the point at this point for Texas.

No, the suffering is the point. The entire "pro-life" "stance" is nothing more than an excuse to indulge in oppression.

[–] Supervisor194 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Precisely correct. This married woman - who wants more children and is a clear case for an exception - couldn't be allowed an exception, because the whores need to be made to suffer for their poor choices.

We can't be muddying the waters with all this "nuance." The whores are going to pay in the state of Texas, and that will be that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lifecoach5000 8 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the simple to understand summary.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This might turn out really funny even though it's horrible right now for a lot of people in Texas. All of the women are going to leave if they can, especially ones with money and an education. Then you're left with the poor people, a bunch of incels and/or white christians fighting over the women that are left. Have fun dumb asses.

Serious note: If you have a woman or family in your life that you care about or just want to help people, get them out of Texas.

[–] assassin_aragorn 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This case confirms that Republicans will not allow exceptions for the mother's health. Paxton has now put into writing, as the state's legal argument, that the legal system can't go by what doctors consider reasonable. Because then someone could find a doctor who would probably grant it.

Hang this millstone around every Republican's neck. Ask every Republican if they agree with Paxton's death panels; if they agree that it's okay for the government to get involved and throw red tape when there's a >5% chance of death without a procedure. Ask them if they would like to rebuke Paxton. And ask what they'll do to make sure that can't happen in any state, including Texas -- or, if people should vote for a Democrat if they want this fixed.

Hold their feet to hot fucking coals until there's sear marks.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Nah, we'll just talk about how Biden is three years older than Trump for the next 11 months.

[–] billiam0202 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or his stance on Palestine, or how he isn't just allowing Russia to steal Ukraine, or Hunter's dong, or any other fucking thing the media thinks they can use to turn the election into a horse race.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

When this sort of thing happened in Kansas, Kansas enshrined abortion rights in their constitution.

When this sort of thing happened in Ohio, Ohio enshrined abortion rights in their constitution.

Texas politicians want to fuck around, they will find out.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Only states which were controlled by progressives in the early 20th century have the ability for voters to use a ballot initiative to override the Legislature like that. Much of the country has no such safety mechanism.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's what they want, so they can solidify Texas as a red state for the next 20 years for voting purposes. Nothing else matters bcz this is all just a game to them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's probably true, but why should anyone put their wives, their kids or themselves at risk for voting purposes? This can be la life/death situation and isn't an ephemeral issue.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bostonbananarama 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then you're left with the poor people, a bunch of incels and/or white christians fighting over the women that are left.

Did you mean to describe all of the south?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mkwt 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Breaking news is that she has decided to secure her own health in another state.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

The system is broken when you have to discuss your health with judges instead of a doctor.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That happened several hours ago, prior to the ruling.

[–] Lifecoach5000 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well hadn’t they already blocked the lower courts ruling?

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

Yes, but courts will do that kind d of thing on a temporary basis to prevent something irreversible from happening before they rule. Temporary blocks like that don't guarantee a particular final decision.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago
[–] MisterFrog 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As an outsider, it is absolutely wild that we're seeing refugees within the same allegedly developed country. I'm more convinced everyday the United states is a just a bunch of countries in a trench coat.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

It's not really a new phenomenon. The book Albion's Seed goes into detail about how the country was put together by different groups of people with very different ideas about what it should be. Those fundamental disagreements define a lot of modern political conflict within the US.

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

It says it on the tin. United States. However, as with any group of entities all striving for power and being driven apart by outside forces, not so united these days.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NotMyOldRedditName 20 points 1 year ago

That image for this post sure looks like a death panel to me

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Texas Supreme Court is adding a blue tinge to Texas, whether they realize it or not.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could also go the other way, if large numbers of women leave the state seeking better odds of surviving pregnancy.

[–] assassin_aragorn 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's worth pointing out that Texas already has really high infant and pregnancy mortality rates too.

Either Republicans get fucked in the polls, or Texas gets fucked. All the companies there will have to relocate if they want to attract and retain their professional employees. Or, they could have policies to aid people seeking an abortion, and dare the state to sue them for it.

[–] TechyDad 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Was that before the flight of any doctor whose practice could even touch on abortion? Because doctors are fleeing Texas and I don't blame them. If my state ruled that I could go to prison for 10 years and become a felon just for doing my job, I'd get out and go to a more welcoming state.

Sadly, this means that a lot of poorer people won't be able to get decent healthcare. Hopefully, before it gets too bad (relatively speaking) there's a political backlash that kicks the Republicans out of office.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] samus12345 12 points 1 year ago

Misread it as "Toxic" instead of "Texas." Still accurate.

[–] CharlesDarwin 8 points 1 year ago

Seems like cons want Texas to be part of the Republic of Gilead.

[–] Rice_Daddy 6 points 1 year ago

The whole article is quite a dystopian read. Paxton's intervention into medical decisions is self-righteous, and a statement from an anti-abortion group that was so cruel I felt a little sick.

load more comments
view more: next ›