this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
732 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19136 readers
2213 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it claimed to be removing the judiciary from the abortion debate. In reality, it simply gave the courts a macabre new task: deciding how far states can push a patient toward death before allowing her to undergo an emergency abortion.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit offered its own answer, declaring that Texas may prohibit hospitals from providing “stabilizing treatment” to pregnant patients by performing an abortion—withholding the procedure until their condition deteriorates to the point of grievous injury or near-certain death.

The ruling proves what we already know: Roe’s demise has transformed the judiciary into a kind of death panel that holds the power to elevate the potential life of a fetus over the actual life of a patient.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hansl@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

As long as we have a congress that’s split around the 50/50 line on issues like these, laws will never get passed.

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Even if a law got passed, it would get repealed when the other side gets the majority. This needs a constitutional amendment and I really don't see that happening ever.

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Or a strong supreme court interpretation that argues that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right and already implied by the 1st, 3rd (if you consider your body to be a house) and 4th amendments (if you consider searching a uterus unreasonable). It is also EXPLICIT in the 5th amendment. Fetuses are not legally considered persons by any jurisdiction (otherwise they could be claimed as dependents) so the life of the person gestating them is protected while the life of the fetus is not. This interpretation is not very popular.

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I looked it up this morning re: jurisdictions recognizing fetuses.

At present, Georgia recognizes a fetus as a dependent on state tax returns.

Virginia and Texas are mulling bills to recognize a fetus as a passenger in a carpool lane.

Brandi Bottone sued in Texas over the carpool lane issue in 2022. She succeeded in getting the citation dismissed. I believe she was making this argument to show the stupidity of Texas law, and came out victorious in court because Texas couldn't change course on the narrative.

Anywho, little by little, chip by chip, state legislatures are indeed taking steps to total erosion of bodily autonomy.

As to the notion of a strong supreme court, that's decades away as things presently stand.

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Gotta impeach Thomas and nullify the appointments of Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch because the president who appointed them was illegitimate. Problem solved!

[–] KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago

A constitutional amendment will never occur again, because it is an incredibly high bar to overcome even when the legislative process in the country isn't as dysfunctional.

One party would need a super majority in both houses of Congress, where the bar is 2/3 but you're probably going to need at least ten more than that to prevent the amendment from being scrapped by a contingent of Joe Liebermans.

Then that same party will need a majority in the state legislatures of 38 states to ratify the amendment.

It's just not going to happen.

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

Could they not have codified it in the ACA?