this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
67 points (100.0% liked)
U.S. News
2233 readers
26 users here now
News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.
Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Post the original source of information as the link.
- If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
- Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
- Social media is not a news source.
For World News, see the News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't support their decision, but this needs to be solved on the state level. So, don't complain to the Fed, write to your congressman.
Sorry, no, absolutely not.
This should be a federal thing. No reasonable person should be debating if a person should receive life saving care or not.
Reasonable people can disagree with little things, like how high a fence can be in your front yard, not if someone should die because other people don’t have a modest grasp of high school biology.
Imagine if slavery were left up to the states...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If at the state level, do you mean the State Level Senator or Rep? As it reads, your congressman (i.e., your Federal Rep in DC) wouldn't have much legislative authority in Texas, even if they represent Texas.
Texas at a state level won't do anything, it's gerrymandered into Banana Republic territory. So you can fix gerrymandering (not likely) or bring the federal justice hammer down on the assholes empowering this crap (also not likely).
This is an issue akin to, but not a mirror of, the Jim Crow South, and I mean that administratively. Texas and other states have created three classes of citizen, divided by their ability to give birth (m or f by Texas interpretation) and, unlike Jim Crow, divided again by if they are pregnant or not. This, like Jim Crow, is effecting lives of course, but also commerce, travel, and other systems in ways I can't fathom. Let alone the mental health and health tolls on anyone carrying a baby, as you're immediately guilty until you give a healthy birth or proven innocent if anything happened to go wrong.
Jim Crow suffered blows from federal power via the federal government pursuing commerce clause arguments. Wait. What? Really? Yes, see Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung.
That's what it'll take to stop this insanity. But, I fear, the current political climate is not there yet. So much needs to get fixed to get us back to the point where a supreme Court won't cite a pre-USA constitution legal argument as grounds to intervene in a woman's personal health. Crazy people out of politics, gerrymandering addressed, hate and anti democratic speech reinterpreted under the 1st amendment, etc.
It's a long battle but Jim Crow's ultimate destruction, and even Roe v Wades success while it lasted, proves we can do it but we need to learn from the shortcomings and solidify basic human rights in our national identity moving forward.