- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Josseli Barnica grieved the news as she lay in a Houston hospital bed on Sept. 3, 2021: The sibling she’d dreamt of giving her daughter would not survive this pregnancy.
The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.
But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”
For 40 hours, the anguished 28-year-old mother prayed for doctors to help her get home to her daughter; all the while, her uterus remained exposed to bacteria.
Three days after she delivered, Barnica died of an infection.
You must log in or register to comment.
This is fucking barbaric. The hospital let her sit for 40 hours with a fetus hanging out of her uterus. Just take a moment to imagine what that alone must have felt like aside from the emotional horror of losing a pregnancy. We wouldn’t even imagine treating pets or livestock this way but it’s clear that these repugnant forced-birthers don’t consider women to be people. One little pill to speed up the labor that her body already decided was needed was all that was required to keep this woman alive. What’s the point of even having healthcare when we can’t rely on it.
God. I agree. This is horrific. And we have the audacity to consider ourselves a first-world country. Texans should immediately take themselves to the state house to demand better. Our tax dollars pay for hospitals to treat us, not to kill us.
Oh you can rely on it… Only if you are Male, White, and Wealthy.
Not a lawyer, but I wonder if there a case to be made with letting a woman get an infection and die due to the fear of commiting a crime by killing the baby. In the end, two people died, but one could have survived.
Texas state law allows abortion in cases of medical emergencies. The hospital was absolutely in the wrong here.
It’s designed to be legal minefield. If I were a doctor I certainly wouldn’t do one. I don’t want to go to prison or be accused of murder for saving somebody’s life. It’s not worth it
Can you please tell me how this is a legal minefield:
Sec. 171.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(3) “Medical emergency” means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.
…
Sec. 171.0124. EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY. A physician may perform an abortion without obtaining informed consent under this subchapter in a medical emergency. A physician who performs an abortion in a medical emergency shall:
(1) include in the patient’s medical records a statement signed by the physician certifying the nature of the medical emergency; and
(2) not later than the 30th day after the date the abortion is performed, certify to the department the specific medical condition that constituted the emergency.
You do know that medical errors happens, right? People die from them all the time. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of it.
What happens if they thought it was an emergency but other physicians might not agree, or after the fact when more information is available it turns out not to be?
So what happens is you wait and wait until your patient is going to die without a doubt… because you have to be sure, thus putting their life at risk.
Emergencies are often not so easy to characterize in the real world. Sometimes you have to make assumptions. Those assumptions aren’t always correct.
Or you could save your patient’s life. The laws state if the physician believes there’s a medical emergency.
I don’t think that’s what it says. Why include the medical records in the statement if we are meant to rely on the doctor’s belief at the time based on the information that was available? Shouldn’t it be enough to trust the expert? It rather looks like making sure there’s documentation for possible criminal prosecution (for murder!) if they’re wrong.
Sure, I can accept there’s a theory of exceptions, but I think it’s liable to scare away providers. However, I suppose I’m not a medical expert. I can point to the well lack of care situation as my example of this concern and the chilling effect the law has on providers doing their jobs.
I’m not a medical expert either, but I rely very heavily on physicians to remain alive. You and I both have a vested interest in our doctors treating us well. This looks like a tragic case of a medical error. This was, in 2018, the leading cause of death in America. It’s not a huge stretch of the imagination. Even given the requirement to document it, with over a dozen people saying it would have been correct, it seems like it would be a very simple matter to prove in before a judge that it was necessary. The law also seems more geared towards collecting anonymous statistics as well.
Notice how that law is vague on the medical emergency aspects. When exactly is a women with an nonviable pregnancy a danger to the mother?
“Life-threatening condition” is a fairly wide umbrella. Given the number of people who die of sepsis every year, that sounds like a life-threatening condition to me. A substantial impairment is defined under federal law. Sepsis would likely also count there, too - it messes you up real badly, after all.
That threat was because she could have sought a C-section. If I’m understanding this page correctly, one’s fertility is reduced by about 13% after a C-section. If I’m not, feel free to show me how I got it wrong. Did that guy ever end up prosecuting anyone involved, though? Why would a judge side with the prosecution after a court literally gave her an order permitting her to do that?
This happened prior to the version of the law you posted.
[Can you point to which law before this happened prohibits abortions in cases of medical emergency?(https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws/history-of-abortion-laws#s-lg-box-wrapper-34155545) Let’s go through the list:
- The 1925 laws were found unconstitutional.
- Roe v. Wade happened in 1973.
- In 1992, the “viability” standard was introduced. This baby was clearly unviable.
- The 1999 law is specific to minors, and the victim here wasn’t a minor.
- The Woman’s Right to Know Act didn’t prohibit abortions.
- The 2011 law stated that a sonogram must be performed. Because the baby was suffering from an irreversible medical condition, though, this wouldn’t apply.
- The only part of the 2013 law that was upheld was the ban after 20 weeks “with some exceptions.” The rest were overtuned in 2016, and this event occurred before the 20th week.
- The 2017 law was found unconstitutional in 2018, well before this happened.
- The 2021 law went into effect on September 1, 2021. However, in Sec. 171.205, it states that the prohibition of abortions on a fetus with a detectable heartbeat “do[es] not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter.” This was a medical emergency.
It’s been the fucking wild west here in Texas due to new laws being pushed out then shot down so quickly, no one can keep track. Even the ones passed are written so badly, they can’t be interpreted correctly. The following is from an article from ProPublica
Although US abortion bans – which more than a dozen states have enacted in the two years since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade – technically permit the procedure in medical emergencies, doctors across the country have said that the laws are worded so vaguely that they don’t know when they can legally intervene.
This has been repeated ad nauseum by doctors on local outlets. It’s meant to be vague and confusing.
Sure sure. Perfectly legal to do an abortion in Texas in a case of a medical emergency.
And then the case gets reviewed by a board of religious zealots who believe unwanted pregnancies (and by extension, pregnancy related deaths) are part of their god’s divine plan. They determine if this was an abortion, or a murder. In Texas, a state where the only thing liberal is their application of the death penalty.
Can you see why what the law says and what the law does can be very different?
The definition of emergency is absurdly specific though. The corpse inside you can’t just be dead, it can’t just be decomposing, the fragments of putrefying corpse matter must be coursing through your blood at a sufficient concentration before anything can legally be done.
If she dies, then it was an emergency and you should have saved her. Jail.
If she doesn’t die, then it wasn’t an emergency and you shouldn’t have done the abortion. Jail.
The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function” if the abortion is not performed.
So, therein lies the problem.
They couldn’t take action before her life was in danger even though they knew it would be. So they have to wait until it’s an “emergency” which is far more risky. And this woman died was a result.
This law greatly increased the risk of the situation needlessly.
She died, so that’s an emergency. If someone is having a stroke and somehow doesn’t die until three days later, that doesn’t make it any less an emergency.
Do you hear yourself?
It was an emergency because she died?
She died days after it was too late for an abortion to save her.
If they performed the abortion when it would have saved her life, she wouldn’t have died, by your own logic it would’n’ve been an emergency.
And you’d be here arguing that the doctor should lose his license for performing an abortion when it wasn’t an emergency.
Yes. If someone is going to die soon after the problem is discovered, it’s an emergency. I don’t think this is a controversial claim. If someone gets hit by a car or has a stroke and has days to live, that doesn’t mean we hold off on providing healthcare so they survive the incident.
Read your own link.
The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function” if the abortion is not performed. “Substantial impairment of a major bodily function” is not defined in this chapter.
So, the words say that they can help, but because they (very intentionally) made the definitions of ‘life threatening condition’ and ‘Substantial impairment of a major bodily function’ undefined, there is no legal way for a doctor to bring harm to a fetus with a heartbeat without exposing themselves to the draconian Texas penalty laws https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws/civil-penalties
The physician believed that a medical emergency had taken place, and therefore it would have been legal. And would you rather face legal consequences, or watch someone die in front of you because you could help them but didn’t?
I hope all that doctor’s other patients feel as morally superior as you do.
I hope the lawyers who gave the doctor this horrible advice get fired.
The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function” if the abortion is not performed.
The problem is that legal jargon and medical jargon are very different animals. The legal is deliberately ambiguous, and the medical is hyper-specific… so doctors are left scratching their heads about things like “is the white blood cell count high enough for a lawyer to call this life threatening?” “Is the blood pressure low enough?” meanwhile the mother waits and dies.
“During a medical emergency” or “life threatening” are copouts that don’t actually mean shit, and no doctor is going to risk going to prison to find out.
There’s already been at least one doctor in Texas who risked legal consequences for performing an abortion, and he won out. And given that twelve other physicians stated a premature delivery should have been done, it’s plain that something should have been done. Now she’s dead, because apparently the hospital staff misunderstood a rather clearly-written law.
Any doctor that performs an abortion in Texas is risking a minimum $100,000 fine and permanently losing there license to practice medicine if lawyers, who are not medical professionals, decide it was medically necessary yet.
As a result, doctors in TX have been advised by their lawyers not to perform abortions unless the mother is literally minutes away from death, because otherwise you can’t prove that it was medically necessary.
In the case, the patient died of sepsis. Doctors couldn’t perform the abortion when she needed it because they couldn’t prove that it was medically necessary yet.
They knew that not performing the abortion would put mom at a much high risk of dying later. But they couldn’t legally prove that risk exists because all pregnancies involve some degree of risk.
If you want doctors to perform medical procedures when it’s medically necessary, you need doctors making that decision, not lawyers, not the state. If that’s what Texas had before this law went into effect.
It’s literally created a trolly problem, it’s now better for the doctors to let some women die so they can save more lives later.
But we have “over a dozen” medical experts who say it would have been the correct decision, and the law explicitly allows it. If it’s so obvious that over a dozen experts who never spoke to the patient could know it was the right decision, then how does a competent doctor actually interacting with the patient not know that?
Yes.
That’s the problem with this law.
It takes the decision away from the medical experts, and puts in the hands of lawyers and judges who may or may not have a different agenda.
The lawyers/judges would want to throw physicians in prison? And as of 2023, no doctors had actually been arrested for doing this. Actually, at least one got a case dismissed after the fact.
I can see you’re clearly not interested in understanding the situation the physician was in or discussing solutions that would have saved this patient’s life.
I’m not going to debate you further.
The hospital knew that they had to protect themselves against the jagoffs who prosecute people who provide women with healthcare.
The law is what created this situation; if the doctors and hospital administration didn’t have to worry about the fascists in the State government, this never would have been an issue.
Or do you just think the doctors didn’t perform the procedure because they didn’t feel like it?
I don’t give a flying fuck why they didn’t help her or what the law says.
They’re monstrous torturers and murderers, regardless of their reasons or lack thereof.
You don’t let someone suffer and die when you have the means to save them, regardless of the consequences, except possibly if those consequences would lead to greater suffering and death (trolley problem). Especially if you call yourself a doctor. (And no, the possibility of going to prison does not count as greater suffering and death, no matter how much of a sociopath you are).
It’s easy to sacrifice someone else to the system. I’m not saying it was the right thing to do, but if these doctors have to stop practicing medicine then more women will die.
Point the blame at the right people.
but if these doctors have to stop practicing medicine then more women will die
Whatever these so called doctors are practicing is the opposite of medicine.
If they were to stop practicing it, at least they wouldn’t have the opportunity to torture and murder more victims, and maybe some real doctors would get their jobs and help.
There’s no excuse for collaborating with a fascist regime. The ones obeying the orders are just as guilty as the ones giving them.
Do you really think OB/GYN are lining up to be doctors in Texas?
Why are you not taking it into your own hands? You’ve not exhausted your own extralegal options, but you’re calling on others to do it.
I’m lucky enough to live in a relatively civilised country (comparatively at least; everything can be improved), not some fascist hellhole like the USA.
Unlike the monsters who tortured and murdered this woman, however, I do use the opportunities and means I have to help people around me, but said people are lucky enough to not be anywhere near the USA.
Why dont you focus your rage against the people actually responsible?
The law is perfectly clear in allowing this. I’m not going to guess why they didn’t do it, but your point is like arguing a cop watching a mass shooting happen right in front of him would be right to blame the law against excessive use of force if he chose not to kill the mass shooter even though there was an explicit clause saying it would have been permitted.
Making an argument comparing doctors to cops may not have been the best move.
I’m not comparing them in terms of moral status, I’m comparing them in terms of what they can and can’t do by law.
I’m not going to guess why they didn’t do it
We all know why they didn’t do it, and your willful ignorance is telling.
Alright, since you want me to say what it was, it sounds like a medical error to me.
thanks for going to the mat with that lunatic, you may have helped distract them from whatever other bullshit they were planning. abortion is health care. denying abortion is denying health care.
You bet!
Exposing the moral depravity of reactionaries is kind of a pet project of mine.
deleted by creator
Can you please tell me how this is confusing:
Sec. 171.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(3) “Medical emergency” means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.
…
Sec. 171.0124. EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY. A physician may perform an abortion without obtaining informed consent under this subchapter in a medical emergency. A physician who performs an abortion in a medical emergency shall:
(1) include in the patient’s medical records a statement signed by the physician certifying the nature of the medical emergency; and
(2) not later than the 30th day after the date the abortion is performed, certify to the department the specific medical condition that constituted the emergency.
You do know that medical errors happens, right? People die from them all the time. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of it.
It’s confusing because Ken Paxton doesn’t actually care about the law. His goons will show up at your door and accuse you of violating the law whether you did the right thing or not.
That’s worth watching an innocent person die? Besides, how likely is it that “even though she was literally dying of the infection and the hospital knew it, that didn’t constitute a medical emergency” would hold up in court?
It wasn’t a “medical error.”
It was the State of Texas intimidating doctors into not performing life-saving healthcare.
You can try to reframe it all you want, but this it the truth of the situation.
How is any of that legal text “intimidating”?
Yeah, they probably were just taking a long lunch instead of treating a patient.
Are you really asking how a law can be intimidating? That’s like… The reason we have laws, man.
The woman died of sepsis. It’s extremely likely when you have a dead or dying fetus hemorrhagically working its way out of a uterus, but until you have it, you don’t. By the time people realize what’s going on, it’s often too late.
The law is disgusting because it is medically uninformed and constraining, and it assumes anyone considering abortion is just some gleefully slutty baby murderer.
From the article:
At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.
This would mean it was legal to perform an abortion. They should have known about this risk.
I am trying to work on being less confrontational on here, but it really feels like you are being willfully obtuse. Playing devil’s advocate for you, it seems like you are struggling with the gap between the text of the law and the enforcement context of the law. In this case there is a very wide gap between the two.
You aren’t going to change any minds here by arguing that the law technically allows abortions in this case. The issue is the enforcement and underlying context of the law.
I think the text of the law is quite plain. It’s not a huge reach to imagine that this is yet another terrible instance of a medial error. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year because of them. If you want to talk about enforcement, then we have at least one case of a doctor having a lawsuit against him dismissed after he was accused of providing an abortion. Also, as of 2023, nobody had been arrested for providing an abortion.
I appreciate you trying to see things from my perspective, but the facts of the case seem pretty clear to me. Arguing that this is because of the abortion law doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If the law says “you can shoot someone if they invade your home,” much the same as this law does, it’s not the legislators’ fault if I freeze up when my home is invaded and die. Medical error, either because of bad legal advice or a poor understanding of medicine, is more reasonable as an explanation.
deleted by creator
If the law is being interpreted in court in such a way that the text of the law is being ignored for the sake of scoring more convictions, the state of Texas is begging to be smacked down for doing so. And that smackdown would be perfectly justified. The longer this obviously incorrect interpretation of the law goes unchallenged, the longer it will cause a chilling effect on the medical community that is truly trying to save lives. No, it is not easy to be the tip of the spear, but the state of Texas would owe them a great debt.
Yes they should have but didn’t because of a vague law that does not lay out exactly when the mothers life is in danger. Does she have to be in pain? Conscious? Bleeding? Irregular heartbeat? Does the fetus have to viable? The law does not allow for interpretation so hospitals literally have to wait until the women is in cardiac arrest to act. So yes if this women was in any normal state with normal defined laws that don’t restrict how doctors decide what their patients need. So yes they should have acted but couldn’t.
The 2017 law allowed abortions in emergencies as defined in Section 171.002, Health and Safety Code. This is what it says:
“As certified by a physician” means the physician can decide whether this is a life-threatening emergency.
Hmmmmm it’s like the religious right nut jobs don’t trust science and doctors.
Please see my reply to your other comment. I don’t see how this has anything to do with science and doctors rather than some idiot giving fatally bad legal advice.
Did you read the article?
there’s another thread about outsiders’ criticisms of lemmy, and one of the comments mentioned that it’s “unwelcoming to right wing viewpoints”
I WONDER FUCKING WHY
Right-wingers don’t have viewpoints. Fascism is not a legitimate political position. It is a threat. We don’t call a serial killer’s propensity to kill a “viewpoint”. Conservatives have motives, not viewpoints.
Paradox of tolerance. They aren’t welcome because they tend not to play nice with others.
I feel genuinely bad for the non-facist conservatives, but today they’d be called leftist too, so I think it’s still fair to say it really shouldn’t be welcome anywhere because the term has become very extreme.
“non-fascist conservatives” have spent the last 40 years obstructing and cozying up to fascists rather than play well with others. They knew what they were doing.
Or, to be as charitable as possible, they’re useful idiots who are lazily unaware of how heinous the people they’re blindly following are.
They’re not exactly unaware, but only care for how it affects them. Anything heinous that happens to someone else is seen as completely irrelevant.
This is how it works though, right? They keep ostracizing groups until they run out of out-groups to attack and the next round begins. The old inner circle is now the circle and a new inner circle is proclaimed, the new outgroup(s) are revealed, and the feeding frenzy continues.
This is what always baffles me about minorities that are staunchly Republican. They’re actually voting for themselves to be put on the chopping block (just not right away)
This is exactly why fascism is ultimately self-defeating. The only question is how many people get hurt in the meantime.
I wish the world was unwelcoming to right-wing viewpoints. This is the result and so many people are fine with it. It’s so depressing.
Derp
Probably the most common right-wing taking point these days. This is the level of discourse the GOP has to offer at this point
Their trollish response to me suggests they’re not the most educated of people.
They rarely are. Hate is stupid and easy. You don’t need to think in order to hate, you just see someone and decide they’re bad for whatever reason you like. Heck, if you can’t find a reason let Fox and Friends™ find one for ya 😀
As Trump once said, “I love the poorly-educated.”
Yes. That’s the sort of thing.
I like it when block-worthy people announce their block-worthyness.
But how will you see their well-reasoned rebuttals now?
Oh no, I haven’t thought about that! I bet they’re capable of… dunno, Shakespearean art!
Test case scenarios:
input: derp
output: you are a right-winger
input: gisnritjwiq9dkfiq
output: you are a right-winger
input: null
output: you are a right-winger
input: test
output: you are a right-winger
input: im not a right-winger
output: you are a right-winger
“I added nothing useful to the conversation and got nothing useful out of it. Fuckin’ leftists.”
🤣
Hey, mod here. I’ve removed 2 of your comments, because they were trolling. Please read the rules. The next time this happens, we will be giving you a temporary ban.
Unfortunately you’ll have to get used to it and continue challenging them. The polycrisis is only going to get worse and the number of refugees from the impact of climate change and climate change related causes i.e. conflict from collapsing food / water access and / or failed states.
In the next 10 to 20 years life quality will peak and then will start collapsing over the next 50.
When that happens a significant cohort of the population will close ranks and want to “protect” those closest around them, the desire the ultra-rich have for isolation will continue to trickle down into the rich and remnants of the upper middle class as the wealth gap widens. In times of crisis this cohort pushes further and further right.
So keep working against these forces so we can get the rich to pay their fair share to fix these problems but be prepared to take up arms when the house of cards that is the relative stability we have now collapses.
let’s keep it that way, the right-wing should be unwelcome everywhere
Reality has a left-wing bias
Ok I’m a lefty but I’ve always hated this statement. It is the launching point of a great deal of ignorance and idiocy, kind of like some religious dogma.
But… It’s observable fact…
A typical position held by people who call themselves “left” is a desire to completely ban gun ownership on the grounds that gun ownership leads to gun violence.
Gun violence was much lower when you could buy actual machine guns right off the shelf, and mass shootings were virtually unheard of. What happened since then, and how would banning guns fix it?
This is just one of many blind spots that make the statement unrealistic.
Except if you go far enough left, you get your guns back…
I mean I’m down as long as we’re not talking going full tankie
I think it’s more shorthand for the fact people generally do want to take care of each other and make sure everyone has the opportunity for a happy life.
Though I suppose it is a little cheeky to say that means people are left leaning.
Plenty of church-going pro-lifers feel like they’re doing the best for their communities and people in general. It’s why when we make arguments we need to not talk down to people like they’re idiots, because they generally are not.
If I was on the receiving end of a line that far up it’s own ass I’d stop listening immediately.
1000%. So long as right-wing equates to racist, seditious, traitorous bastards, then yeah…you’re not welcome here or anywhere else in this country. Go find Jesus or something.
Any amount of right wing will never sit well with me after trump. Things could flip and the conservatives could somehow be fighting for workers rights and I’d still side with the party that supports women’s right to chose etc.
If lemmy became a right wing cess pool I’d be done with it in a heart beat. There are a lot of shit ideas on this platform and I do wish I could find my tribe but as much as I know of them, they are my people.
yeah, definitions are hard, but in general I tend to think of the right as promoting traditional hierarchy and the left as being egalitarian.
What country?
Most right wingers think their views are legitimate because the right wing exists as the direct opposition to the left. But i think that view is warped.
We need to start considering right wingers as extremists and not the opposition. They should be outliers on a spectrum where the left is much more central and the right is much more to the extreme right
|----------------------------------------left wing----‐-----center----------------------------------------right wing--------|
Like that
They think their views are as right as ours are left. If they were, they would likely be welcome here.
I don’t really see what is wrong with authentically egalitarian politics, so I’m inclined to think the “center” is just a euphemism for right-wing.
If a left wing movement fails in its egalitarianism, like when the USSR had slave camps, then I think we should not think of that movement as left wing at all, it just fails the definition of being left wing.
The common response to this is that it is a form of no true scotsman fallacy, which I think could be a legitimate concern since you might define a left wing ideal as the definition and anything failing to live up to the perfection of that ideal is not “left”. But on the other hand, I don’t know how else to consider some politics authentically egalitarian and worth supporting and others inauthentic or corrupt and embodying hierarchical or right-wing tendencies. Maybe there is no bright line we can draw or reduce to a logical equation, but I would like to think there is still some value in evaluating which politics to support (i.e. which politics are furthering egalitarian means or ends).
Or, hear me out, discard the left-right metaphor for the nonsense that it is and refer to ideologies by their names. There is no left, there are communists/socialists and anarchists. There is no center, there are liberals and conservatives. There is no right, there are fascists and “libertarians.”
The left-right metaphor is a set of training wheels, and by continuing to use them you sabotage your own political understanding.
Any space thats welcoming for me (a trans person) is unwelcoming to right wing viewpoints.
They can stay on X.
> Talks against healthcare
> Wonders why nobody likes those speeches
I can hear the church lady’s now, “omg that’s awful, how did this happen???” Oh well, gods plan.
What the actual fuck. This is horrendous.
Pro-life crowd, I thought you were supposed to keep life, not end it.
Now there’s a man who’s a widow, and a child without a mother, and a lady who died for literally nothing.
Fuckin’ hell.
Hurting women is part of the platform. This is not even an ‘unintended’ consequence.
Texas politicians and anti-abortion death cultists murdered this poor woman.
This is worse than ‘Thoughts and Prayers’.
A lot of elected officials - and their supporters - are accessories to the killing .
This is more like armed police waiting around outside a crime scene and actively preventing any attemp . . .
Everything is bigger in Texas…
“Those damn immigrants taking all our healthcare.”
we can’t tolerate this. these supposed “pro-life” policies are killing, literally murdering women.
Dear pro lifers. This is her blood. It’s on your hands now. It’s not the first blood that got spilled unnecessarily, and it won’t be the last. And it’s on your hands. YOU made this happen.
Pro-lifers doing a fantastic job of killing people. Truly horrific.
That’s bad.
Republican ideas made into law killed her.
So the medical professionals listened to a man, rather than the woman? Typical. Men shouldn’t have any say in women’s health. It’s in the nature of males to seek control over female reproduction. If people can’t filter this bias, we need a law to protect people against it.
It’s in the nature of males to seek control over female reproduction
Go down to the section titled “Views on abortion by gender, 2024” https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
Picture this when ever you see that Orange Turd walk on camera. That is what he brings.
Picture this when ever you see that Orange Turd walk on camera. That is what he brings.
Also the smarmy couch-fucker who is riding on his coattails.
Vote Kamala Harris and your sisters, wives and daughters can stop dying for lack of health care when pregnant.
What is the course of action that you expect Kamala to take that would prevent this situation in Texas? And if you have one, why hasn’t Biden done it already?
What definitely will happen with Kamala is that women in New York or California don’t suffer the same fate next year as well.
Win the WH, win both houses of Congress, blow up the filibuster and enact national protections for abortion.
Will it work? Probably not. It definitely won’t happen if Trump wins, though.
Plus if Trump wins, Alito and Thomas retire and get replaced by 25 year old fascists and things get even worse for decades.
I dunno if you were being sincere or intentionally obtuse, but it’s kind of straightforward that we have to win.
That shit hasn’t happened in less contentious times, I literally cannot imagine it happening now.
Ok probably not sincere.
The contentiousness is what put killing the filibuster on the table. In less contentious times, we didn’t need to destroy basic political norms just to save people’s lives.
It takes basically no effort to vote. Things are clearly better with Harris winning than Trump.
You think I’m not sincere, and I think you’re delusional.
You arent sincere. You dont bring any arguments to the table while all the people you are arguing with did. Why do you think Trump would make this situation better when he is the reason this issue exists?
Roe v Wade still existed in less contentious times.
I am not American, nor the person you responded to, but in 2020 the Democrats won the white house, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
As an outsider looking in, why is there the expectation that Kamala doing it again in 2024 will have a different result?
Back in 2020, I read op-eds from several pundits who worried that choosing Biden was a mistake, as he ran on a platform essentially of returning politics to “normal.” They worried that once he won, people would settle back into the old routines, and forget about the simmering fascist threat and do diddly about it. I remember this well, because I feared the same.
That’s pretty much what happened. Credit to the House January 6th special committee for finally forcing Merrick Garland to get off his ass and do a something about the insurrection… 2 years later. (Which made it easy to delay the trial until after the next election.) That’s about it, though. Hell, this wasn’t difficult to predict, given the way that Obama decided to “look forward” and not hold Bush administration officials accountable for their crimes.
That is to say, if Harris wins, I predict more of the same. Folks on the blue side will breathe a sigh of relief, make excuses for why they can’t act, and do their best to forget about it until the next most-important-election-in-history. We (Americans) don’t have a plan to deal with it, and they’ll instead just get angry and call you and me disingenuous, or Russian bots, for pointing it out.
Unfortunately the Democrats need slightly more than a bare majority because some Democrats might as well be Republicans.
Kamala has also stated her support for exempting this legislation from the filibuster, something Biden didn’t do. She wouldn’t technically have the power herself, but might get Senate Democrats on board.
Not actively, gleefully making things worse. Biden is doing this.
Working to stack the Supreme Court, and triggering a constitutional crisis in the process because the Republican Senate will refuse confirmation, and the Supreme Court that was stacked with self-contradictory GOP bullshit will agree with them would be the interesting move that won’t happen because the Democrats are cowards and institutionalists rather than fascist monsters.
Who controls the House? That’s a better barometer of change but having a supportive president is paramount. Either have control of the house and overwhelming control of the Senate, or enough control of both that a friendly President signs the bill into law.
Why hasn’t Biden done it already? Mike Johnson.
